Standing Committee D

[Dame Marion Roe in the Chair]

Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill

Clause 101 - Powers of arrest

Amendment moved [this day]: No. 302, in clause 101, page 67, line 14, leave out lines 15 to 17.—[Mr. Grieve.] 
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Marion Roe: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following: Amendment No. 303, in clause 101, page 67, leave out lines 18 to 22.
Amendment No. 146, in clause 101, page 67, leave out lines 23 to 26. 
Amendment No. 218, in clause 101, page 67, line 24, after 'if', insert— 
'(a) the offence is an arrestable offence punishable by more than 5 years imprisonment, or 
(b)'. 
Amendment No. 296, in clause 101, page 67, line 24, after 'if', insert— 
'(a) the offence is an arrestable offence, or 
(b)'. 
Amendment No. 165, in clause 101, page 67, line 27, leave out from beginning to end of line 5 on page 68. 
Amendment No. 219, in clause 101, page 67, line 43, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 68. 
Amendment No. 166, in clause 101, page 68, leave out lines 6 to 28. 
Amendment No. 295, in clause 101, page 68, line 17, at end insert— 
'(za) the offence is an arrestable offence,'. 
Government amendment No. 255. 
Clause stand part. 
Clause 102 stand part. 
Amendment No. 220, in schedule 7, page 164, leave out lines 3 to 13. 
Amendment No. 185, in schedule 7, page 164, leave out lines 8 to 13. 
Amendment No. 221, in schedule 7, page 164, line 30, leave out from beginning to end of line 38 on page 168. 
Schedule 7 be the Seventh schedule to the Bill. 
New clause 13—Powers of arrest (No. 2)— 
 'In section 24 of PACE (arrest without warrant for arrestable offences), leave out subsection (1)(b) and insert— 
''(b) to offences which the Secretary of State may by order prescribe;''.'. 
New clause 14—Powers of arrest (No. 3)— 
 'In section 24 of PACE (arrest without warrant for arrestable offences), leave out subsection (1)(b) and insert—
''(b) to offences other than those which the Secretary of State may by order prescribe;''.'.

Hazel Blears: I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Marion.
Before lunch, I explained that we are moving from a framework in which the seriousness of the offence is the defining character to one that involves the test of necessity. That is the fundamental point.

Jonathan Djanogly: I apologise to the Minister if the passing of time has dulled my memory, but I think that she said earlier the opposite of what she is saying now. Can she confirm that she said that seriousness will stay part of the overall reasonableness test, which will therefore become stronger?

Hazel Blears: I am delighted to confirm that seriousness will remain one of the factors to be used in deciding whether it is necessary to exercise the power. It is an important factor and it will remain a central consideration, because we do not want to deny the basis on which Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 provisions have developed. However, a number of other matters will also be taken into account, and that will strengthen the test.
The hon. Members for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) emphasised the nature of policing in this country, that it is policing by consent. The nature of the encounter between the police officer and the citizen is therefore critical if that relationship is to be maintained. By introducing the test of necessity, we raise the threshold at which police officers can exercise their judgment. That strengthens the relationship at the time of the encounter; it is policing not only by consent, but with the active co-operation of communities. That takes us further in developing neighbourhood policing models. 
I hope that the Committee will accept my reassurance that the changes are designed to strengthen the relationship between citizens and the police rather than to weaken it.

Dominic Grieve: I apologise for my late arrival.
I have had an opportunity to consider what the Minister said before lunch, and I appreciate that the first part of the clause, which deals with constables' powers, repeats many but not all the PACE provisions. It gets rid, however, of the distinction between arrestable and non-arrestable offences. That leaves me with an anxiety that the provision sends out a signal to the police about the use or extension of their powers that might work against the sensitive exercise of those powers. I do not know to what extent she intends to touch on that issue, but I hope that we can examine it.

Hazel Blears: I am keen to dispel any message of the sort to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Perhaps I can help him by saying that seriousness remains one of the factors. We also want to consider the effect on the victim and the way in which we can ensure that the powers are used both to investigate crime and to secure convictions, and we intend to develop a code of  practice on the way in which the powers will be used. That will happen after consultation not only with the limited range of stakeholders specified in PACE, but much more widely, to ensure that the messages we send out in relation to the framework reinforce the points that I have made about community policing and maintaining the good relationship between citizens and the police service.

David Heath: The Minister has said several times that the test of seriousness remains, but I am at a loss to understand how. The test of necessity provision is, as she correctly says, largely lifted from the previous general arrest conditions for minor offences that did not come under the category of arrestable offences or serious arrestable offences. I see no other condition on the arrest that applies to the seriousness of the offence. Will she explain why she believes that the test of seriousness persists?

Hazel Blears: If the hon. Gentleman compares section 25 of PACE with the necessity provisions in subsection (1), he will see that proposed subsection (5)(e) makes a key addition. There are currently no necessity provisions for the general power of arrest, but paragraph (e) will allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence or the conduct of the person in question. That relates to whether one is looking at a serious offence and whether, in a complex investigation, one needs to make an arrest in order to take the matter forward. As I say, we do not specify seriousness as a particular factor, but when a constable is considering whether to exercise the power, that judgment will, under the code of practice to be worked up under PACE, clearly include consideration of the nature of the offence that has been committed.

David Heath: I am sorry to test the Minister further on this issue; I am not trying to be clever. The reasons listed in subsection (5) are alternatives; they are options or palette of reasons from which the officer can choose. Adding an additional reason to enable the investigation of the offence will not provide an additional test, because it will not qualify the others. Good arguments may be advanced for doing exactly as she says, but the suggestion that the provisions maintain a seriousness test is not one of them. It flies in the face of the logic of the clause as presently constructed.

Hazel Blears: I am sorry, but I think that the hon. Gentleman fails to appreciate the problem. It is not his fault; it may be mine in terms of communication. We are asking constables to take a more holistic view of the circumstances that face them. At the moment, they have to decide only whether something is covered by the PACE list, but that is an arbitrary way of deciding whether or not to arrest. Under that arrangement, the constable can simply say, ''If it is in the list, I can do it, so let's get on with it.'' We are asking the constable to take a view on the nature of the offence, the conduct of the person in question and the seriousness of the situation, including whether there is physical injury or loss or damage to property, or whether can he get an  address. A range of issues are involved, and the constable has to be satisfied that it is right to exercise the power in those circumstances.
I have given the hon. Gentleman the assurance that, when we work up the code of practice, the nature of the offence will clearly be a consideration. However, the current system, with an arbitrary list saying when one can arrest irrespective of the need to exercise that power, is not the right place to be. We have tried to move on from that framework, but to retain some of the concepts relating to necessity that are to be found in the general powers of arrest. That is why we have transposed them into the new provision. We are retaining some of the concepts, but we seek a gateway of necessity rather than the arbitrary gateway of seriousness.

Andrew Mitchell: The question for the Minister is clear. She seeks to blunt the argument of those on the Opposition Benches and to beguile us with her promised code of practice. What does she mean? She says that she will consult, but will the matter be the subject of debate in the House? Will it be the subject of any form of secondary legislation? Whom does she envisage consulting? To what extent should she be able to blunt our arguments by the promise of a code of practice? Will she reassure us on that point?

Hazel Blears: I shall be delighted to do so. The preparation and promulgation of codes of practice is a long-established means of putting flesh on the bones of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. There is a series of statutory codes, and the proposed code would be another such code. There will be formal consultation. I understand that we are statutorily bound to consult a limited number of stakeholders, including various police organisations. In this case, we intend to consult not only those bodies, but organisations such as Liberty. Members have raised the question of disproportionality, particularly for people from black and minority ethnic communities, so we intend also to consult them about the implications of the code. The code will be subject to an affirmative resolution in both Houses, following not only the consultation but consideration by the Select Committee on Home Affairs. The consultation is a fairly formal procedure.

Dominic Grieve: The Minister persuades me that, in respect of what were previously arrestable offences, the mechanisms provided for in the first part of clause 101 could well be described as an improvement because they provide for a greater degree of flexibility, albeit—I suspect that she would agree—that the police already exercise some flexibility even over arrestable offences. My anxiety arises in respect of the general powers of arrest for offences previously provided for under section 25 of PACE. Although the criteria may have been more prescriptive in section 25, I am left with the slightly uneasy feeling that the consequence is that more of those who have committed minor offences or who are alleged to have done so—this will be an allegation, not a proven fact—will end up being arrested unnecessarily under her proposals.

Hazel Blears: It is difficult for any of us to look into a crystal ball, see the future and predict the effects. The aim is to achieve the opposite to what the hon. Gentleman set out. That perhaps includes seeing fewer arrests, as people will be able to exercise a better degree of discretion and professionalism about whether an arrest is necessary. At the moment, it is tempting for a constable simply to think, ''This offence is in the list and I can arrest, so I will exercise my power.'' We are trying to ensure that the constable does not automatically go down the route of making an arrest, but says at certain points, ''Is it necessary for me to do this?'' If the hon. Gentleman thinks about some of the tools that we brought in, such as fixed penalty notices and other tools to tackle offences, he will see that our whole direction is towards reducing arrest, as we want to reduce the time that constables spend processing people through the custody suite so they can spend more time out on the streets fighting crime.

Tony McWalter: I hope that my hon. Friend will not go too far down the road that it has been suggested we should take, particularly by the Liberal Democrats. For instance, many police officers are currently unclear about whether they can make an arrest if they are sworn at. In one sense, we can say, ''It's only a word, and it's common'', but on the other hand, swearing often displays extreme disrespect to the police and makes it difficult for them to do their job, unless they know that they have the power to arrest in that situation. That is the sort of circumstance in which it is right that a police officer can arrest with a strong feeling that he is enabled by that power to police more effectively.

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the police being able to do their job more effectively. That is the purpose of the provisions—to ensure that the police have sufficient powers and that the system is rebalanced so that we do not look at seriousness in isolation, but consider the effect on the victim and the conduct of the offence. In particular, I highlighted the need to allow prompt and effective investigation, which is an important addition. We are talking about exercising powers with a view to securing not only an arrest where an offence has been committed, but a good investigation and a conviction. That is how we can make people confident in the criminal justice system, so that they are more likely to come forward with the community intelligence that is fundamental to our neighbourhood policing. The change that we are introducing is about trying to see the situation not from the offender's perspective, but from that of the citizen and the victim.
The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) raised the issue of zero-tolerance policing, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter). There is no policy shift to zero tolerance in any circumstance. We are seeking to provide the police with a range of tools to have at their disposal, so that when they come across a situation, they can decide the appropriate way to deal with it in the interests of justice and of getting good convictions and detections.  That is why we have introduced fixed penalty notices, dispersal orders and all the antisocial behaviour tools. The provisions before us have the same policy context. They are about saying that we want to be effective on the streets, and sending a message to offenders that we are going to give the police the powers to get them off the streets.

James Clappison: I am grateful to the Minister for supplying us with copies of section 25 of the old PACE provisions, which has been helpful. As she said, subsection (5)(e) is the important addition in the clause. Can she confirm that paragraph (e), to which she has referred at length, will be of use to the police only in cases of the less serious offences, which are not arrestable? As matters stand under PACE, a police officer has the right to arrest someone for an arrestable offence. The provision can be used only for the less serious type of offences.

Hazel Blears: Clearly, the purpose of the amendments that we are making is to introduce a framework in which any offence is arrestable, from the most to the least serious. The clause sets out qualifying factors to decide whether or not arrest is necessary in those circumstances. The phrase
''to allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence'' 
would apply to the whole range of offences, and the police officer would need to think about that.

James Clappison: The point that I am making to the Minister is that the police already have such a power in the case of an arrestable offence, because the police officer can simply arrest somebody. The provision before us will apply only in the case of less serious offences. If there is a test of seriousness, it applies to less serious offences, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome has been saying.

Hazel Blears: I accept that we already have a position in which people would be able to arrest for serious offences. I entirely accept that. We are seeking to introduce a new framework. If we move to the new tests, it is important that we have such a framework.

Vera Baird: As I understand it, contrary to what the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) implied, section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 will be repealed, so there will be no general power to arrest at all, except the one before us. [Interruption.] I hope that that is clear. I am sorry; I thought that he had not taken it into account.
My concern runs contrary to the one that is being raised now and to the one I thought I had, which was too many arrests, and I think that it troubles some of the police representatives who are here this morning. My hon. Friend the Minister says that paragraph (e) is a sort of proxy for seriousness, but I cannot make that connection myself. I do not understand why a grave offence is likely to require more prompt investigation than a weak one. Consequently, I cannot see why the gravity of an offence would automatically bring an arrest justifiable under paragraph (e). The concern is that, when there has been a really serious offence, if the  officer makes the error of thinking it should fall under paragraph (e) or cannot find a subsection to put it under, he might have made a false arrest. That would mean that all the evidence recovered thereafter would not be admissible. That is a problem, as one can see when coming at the issue from the opposite point of view, and I invite the Minister to consider it.

Hazel Blears: I understand the point that my hon. and learned Friend is making. I do not entirely accept it, because there could be circumstances in which a serious offence would need prompt investigation. There may be a need to preserve evidence or immediately to question somebody for serious matters, so I do not accept that paragraph (e) relates only to more trivial offences. It could relate to trivial and serious offences. If she looks at paragraph (f), she will find that it ensures that prosecutions are not hindered by the disappearance of the person in question. Again, if a serious offence has been committed, the likelihood that someone will seek to escape from the scene may be greater, as the more serious the offence, the more serious the consequences. I do not accept that the issues are exclusive, but I take her point that the provision could apply to both serious and less serious offences.

Vera Baird: What I am really saying is that neither paragraph (e) nor paragraph (f) will automatically apply to a serious offence. The matter will not necessarily lie with the gravity of the offence. Officers who understandably want to arrest for a serious offence and who might think about bail being permissible but only under strict conditions in due course might not have a ground to arrest. The true position with this new model, whose purpose I understand, is that the gravity of the offence has disappeared completely as a criterion.

Hazel Blears: I do not accept my hon. and learned Friend's contention. Some of the responses to our consultation expressed entirely the opposite view. In fact, the nature of the provisions means that they are so catch-all that they are not a serious filter in terms of narrowing the issues that can be taken into account. We have received criticism from both sides. There have been suggestions that there are no circumstances in which the necessity test could not be passed, let alone circumstances in which other matters might escape. That is why it is important that, when we prepare the code of practice, we give as much guidance as we can about the nature of the holistic decision that we are asking officers to take in relation to the circumstances that face them.

Dominic Grieve: I thank the Minister for giving way, as she is doing so in the best spirit of Committee debate.
I understand the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird). Curiously, I approached it from the other angle, and I do not think that the two positions are incompatible. She has highlighted the fact that, with the lack of a seriousness test, an officer might feel disadvantaged in taking the  decision. Equally, I think that there appears to be an open door to an officer to arrest on fairly trivial grounds, because 
''to allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence'' 
appears to be a bit of a catch-all provision. 
We are narrowing down our discussion to the nub of the anxiety. It may well be that the guidelines can cure it, but the alternative approach might be to have a seriousness test or possibly a seriousness test and paragraph (e).

Hazel Blears: We have just seen an illustration of the way in which the provision can be approached from both sides. We can make the criticism that it is a catch-all measure that does not allow anything through and that arrests will take place for the more trivial offences. Equally, we have the concerns expressed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar. I can do no more at this stage than try to reassure the Committee that we will endeavour to ensure that the issues raised by hon. Members will be addressed in the code of practice.
I want to deal with the more general question that has been raised, particularly in the Liberal Democrat amendments, about why we have not gone for the original PACE review recommendation that we should simply come up with a prescribed list of offences. The review recommended creating a definitive list complemented by information on how the offences could be applied, but said that more radical ideas about expanding the scope to arrest required further consultation. The review said that the prescribed list was a starting point, but called for more fundamental change. 
That is why we have tried to incorporate the necessity test and to get away from the arbitrary issue of the seriousness of the offence. It is important for me to tell the Committee that the proposal has not simply been promoted by the Home Office. We had the PACE review and then the consultation, and that is why we have ended up opposing the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome. We do not believe that a prescriptive list is enough, and we think that the approach that we are taking is a better one.

Vera Baird: I, too, am trying to improve things or to give the Minister food for thought; that is all. Of course, if the grounds of arrest set in statute are not sufficient to cover any particular situation, whatever the code of practice says will not alter that. The grounds of arrest have to be in the statute. If there is anything in either of the concerns that have been expressed today, an amendment should be tabled later on, rather than the code of practice relied on. As I say, if the grounds are not in the statute, one cannot put them there through a code of practice.

Hazel Blears: I think that I have shown that I have heard what hon. Members have to say. At the moment, I am in a position to go no further than the code of practice, but I have clearly heard the remarks of those on both sides of the argument.
Secondly, I recognise the concerns raised by the hon. Gentleman, despite his personal bravery in tackling criminals, about the possibility of citizen's arrests being used for trivial offences. Citizens have a difficulty now in knowing what is an arrestable offence, a serious arrestable offence or a general power of arrest, and how they might act. If we are to have a new amended form of citizen's arrest, we need much more communication with the public about where it might fall. I am happy to say to him that I will consider the matter seriously before Report to see whether I can meet the genuine concerns that have been expressed in the Committee about narrowing down even further the circumstances in which a citizen's arrest can take place. I understand the concerns that have been raised. 
I suppose that it is a peculiar feature of British law that the constable is the citizen in uniform and that we all have the ability to arrest. It is right that that should be set at an appropriate level, but also communicated to the public so that they know the circumstances in which they might operate. I hope, on that basis, that the hon. Gentleman is reassured. 
Finally, I want to deal with breach of the peace and Government amendment No. 255. We originally proposed to abolish the breach of the peace power; in a way, I was trying to strike a balance with civil liberties. I wondered whether we needed such a catch-all power if we were bringing in a power to make every criminal offence arrestable. Was not that a belt-and-braces job, giving the police more powers than they should really have? That was a strange position to find myself in as Minister with responsibility for policing. 
In the consultation, however, the Police Federation highlighted two examples of where the power is used pre-emptively, and that was quite persuasive. One example is cases of domestic violence in which there is no complaint from the person who is being assaulted or who is likely to be assaulted, and the power has been very useful there. The other example involves people with mental health problems who are held informally, as using the power in such cases can help to contain a situation while the formal legal processes are conducted. Those are just two examples of situations in which the Police Federation said that it is extremely useful to have the power. 
I urge hon. Members to support amendment No. 255 and to oppose the Conservative amendments, which would reinstate the seriousness test in place of the necessity test, and the Liberal Democrat amendments, which seek to introduce a prescriptive list of offences, rather than the necessity test.

David Heath: I welcome you to the Committee, Dame Marion.
I am grateful to the Minister for the time and care that she has taken in responding to the debate; she has moved us further forward in a number of ways. I have no idea what the hon. Member for Beaconsfield intends to do about the amendments standing in his name, but I take some comfort from the Minister's comments about the PACE codes of conduct. She has given us assurances about those codes of conduct, which are critical to the operation of PACE; they are not a trivial matter or some guidance in the ether, and they will have a real effect on the operation of the power before us. None the less, I hope that she will consider further qualifying the initial power of arrest to reflect the seriousness test, which she wants to be implicit, but which, at the moment, is not. If she looks carefully at what has been said, she will recognise that that is the case. 
On the power of citizen's arrest, however, I still think that the provision in the Bill is completely mad. It is not even qualified by PACE; it provides for a general power of arrest, for anybody, for anything. 
The Minister spoke to my new clauses and explained why the Government have taken the avenue that they have in redefining the power of arrest, but she did not say whether there is any way of qualifying the powers in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and other legislation that flow from the term ''arrestable offence'' to ensure that they are used only in cases in which the seriousness of the offence merits their application. Whenever Committees have considered new powers of this kind, Ministers have been quick to assure us that they will apply only to arrestable and therefore more serious offences. Now that we are making every offence arrestable, all those assurances are worthless. That is a genuine concern for many of us.

Hazel Blears: Perhaps I can give the hon. Gentleman some assurance; I apologise for not dealing with the matter in my original remarks. I refer him to schedule 7. The trigger powers—powers to search and set up road blocks, and all the powers that emanate—will relate to offences that are triable either way or only on indictment, not to offences that are triable summarily only. We have tried to set a higher threshold. I take the  hon. Gentleman's point about that. With the abolition of the concept of arrestable and serious arrestable offences, the setting of a threshold at the level of indictable offences should reassure the hon. Gentleman that the powers will not be exercised in an arbitrary fashion. Some of them are quite intrusive, and they should require a higher threshold.

David Heath: That is very helpful, and if the Minister had made those comments earlier I might not have spoken again, so I hope that she will forgive me. Although she has gone some way towards reassuring me, I still have concerns about various aspects of the clause and continue to believe that the provision on powers of citizens' arrest is unsupportable in its present form.

Dominic Grieve: I repeat my gratitude to the Minister for the way in which she has handled the debate, and enabled us to engage in proper Committee debating, with an exchange of views rather than just formal set speeches.
To deal first with the question of the arrest without warrant by a constable, I am still concerned about how the provision will work in practice. I am sure that the Minister appreciates that it is difficult for we parliamentarians to pass legislation that is to rely on codes of practice—on a wing and a prayer, to some extent. I share the view of the hon. and learned Member for Redcar that it is possible to improve the relevant provisions and I am pleased that the Minister has agreed to think further about it. I continue to be concerned that the power could bite two ways: it could leave an officer unclear as to how seriousness had a bearing on whether he could intervene in any offence; and proposed new section 24(5)(e) of PACE could be used as a catch-all excuse for an officer who wanted to exercise his powers to justify arresting someone. Those are specific concerns. 
That said, I am not minded to press to the vote any of the amendments that I tabled as probing amendments to proposed new subsections (1) to (6). I shall wait to see what the Minister has to say. Perhaps she will write to Committee members before Report, explaining the Government's approach and their response to the debate, which that would be helpful. If not, I suspect that we shall return to the issue on Report in some form or other, when I have had time to think further about the implications 
As for arrest without warrant by other persons, I am pleased that the Minister is to think again about that as well. I had the impression from her words that she will think again about that in perhaps a slightly more fundamental way than she will about the first part of the clause. There remains, I believe, a big problem. I am a great believer in citizens feeling empowered to enforce the law—indeed, I think one of the real problems in this country today is that people feel disempowered to intervene, even when they could probably do so quite safely. I am not suggesting that people should expose themselves to risk, although some may choose to do so, but in some instances there  is no prospect at all of restoring order and reducing disorder unless citizens are prepared to intervene proactively. 
I do not want to deter citizens from such action, but I am bound to say the provisions that we are considering will allow every officious little intermeddler to have a field day. Neighbours will arrest each other. I foresee the most dreadful complications as the police are constantly summoned to take over the custody of the person arrested when they are not in a position to respond. 
The Minister faces a problem, because removing the distinction between an arrestable and a non-arrestable offence, which I suppose is implicit, if not explicit, in the first part of the clause, raises the difficult question of what criteria should be satisfied for somebody to be allowed to conduct a citizen's arrest. If the Minister moves away from the established principle, under which the arrestable offence should be punishable by five years' imprisonment, she will have to produce a definitive list and ensure that trivia are kept out of that list. I refer in particular to most, though not all, road traffic matters. If someone is blind drunk and sitting at the steering wheel of car about to drive off, that would be a justifiable reason for conducting a citizen's arrest. However, the Minister will have to consider that list carefully. Furthermore, once we move down that route, it will be the Government's responsibility to provide in a brochure a bit of publicity about what people can and cannot do. I would certainly support the Minister in that. 
I am pleased that the Minister has agreed to retain the power of arrest for breach of the peace. She cited two good examples and I can think of a number of others. On Thursday we shall consider incitement to religious hatred, about which I have serious reservations, as the Minister knows. However, I have always been of the view that if somebody stands on a street corner and starts uttering inflammatory language that causes a crowd to gather and threaten to start a riot, the power to remove the person who is causing that serious irritation and is about to precipitate a serious breach of the peace is one that the police should feel ready to exercise—and, in my experience, they have done so. That power is an important moderating feature. The police can go up to somebody and say, ''Look, if you carry on like this, we will have to arrest you for breach of the peace. Go home.'' That can be a useful tool in sensible policing, so I am pleased that it is to be retained, just as I am pleased that it is available in the context of domestic violence and the other matters that the Minister mentioned. 
I do not wish to press most of my amendments in the group, but, taking the matter in the round, I shall press amendment No. 166, which would delete the provisions on citizen's arrest. I wish to encourage the Minister, but I cannot let provisions that are in such a dreadful state pass without registering a protest. On the assumption that that is possible, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived. 
Amendment made: No. 255, in clause 101, page 68, line 34, leave out subsection (4)—[Ms. Blears.] 
Clause 101, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clause 102 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Schedule 7 agreed to.

Clause 103 - Power to direct a person to leave a place

David Heath: I beg to move amendment No. 186, in clause 103, page 69, line 10, after 'offence', insert
'or in the case of an order made by virtue of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, following the person's conviction or acquittal of an offence,'. 
I am happy to acknowledge the Conservatives' support for the amendment. Its aim is to correct an unintentional omission by the Government. The clause deals with the power to direct a person to leave a place, and it says that 
 ''A constable may direct a person to leave a place if he believes, on reasonable grounds, that the person is in the place at a time when he would be prohibited from entering it by virtue of . . . an order to which subsection (2) applies, or . . . a condition to which subsection (3) applies.'' 
Subsection (2) deals with orders that are made by virtue of any enactment following a person's conviction of an offence—that is the qualifying feature. It is obviously intended to apply to any restraining order applied by a court for an offence that prevents a person from entering a particular vicinity, and it provides for the constable to order the person to leave. However, as those of us who, only a few months ago, spent many happy hours disagreeing with what is now the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 know, the Government introduced in that Act a new power-making capacity that allows for restraining orders on acquittal. That is important, because it allows a criminal court to find a person not guilty of an offence, but for the material that was before that court  to be used in evidence for the making of a restraining order, essentially on a civil court basis, preventing that person from harassing another individual under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. 
We agreed with the Government that it was a necessary addition to the order-making powers, to provide for circumstances in which somebody who clearly had been involved in domestic violence had been found not guilty of a specific offence, but there was a reasonable likelihood of some form of harassment against the spouse of the accused or another individual. It is clear that that order, which was to be made on acquittal rather than on conviction, would not be covered by the provisions of clause 103(2)(a), which refers to ''following the person's conviction'' of an offence. Therefore, if we want to give police officers the power to move somebody who, following acquittal, is in breach of a restraining order under that legislation, we need to extend the provision. That is the purpose of the amendment. I hope that it is self-explanatory, that I do not need to expand further on what I have said, and that the Minister will either accept it or undertake to bring it back in an amended form that will achieve the same objective.

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman's amendment seems to be making a good point. I would certainly expect that the orders made on acquittal under the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act, which we considered only recently, ought to be included in the power under clause 103. No doubt, if we have got it wrong, the Minister will tell us. If we have got it right, then she might be happy to accept the amendment.

Hazel Blears: There is little between us in terms of the mischief that we are able to resolve. I am sorry to tell both hon. Gentlemen, however, than the amendment is unnecessary in technical terms. It is also technically defective, but the important point is that it is unnecessary. It appears to be intended to extend the scope of proposed new powers to restraining and non-molestation orders. The purpose of clause 103 is to plug a gap that does not exist in relation to non-molestation and restraining orders.
We are trialling satellite tracking technology, particularly for sex offenders. Such people may be excluded from going near a primary school or the scene of previous offences. As we track them through that technology, if they go into that exclusion zone we can ask them to leave, but we do not have any power of arrest if they refuse to do so. In the case of non-molestation and restraining orders that are made on acquittal, as the hon. Gentlemen said, they attract a power of arrest, so there is no gap for non-molestation orders and restraining orders. The gap that we are specifically trying to plug is in relation to breaches of community orders, suspended sentences or licence conditions where there are other enforcement provisions in place. That is why we are now seeking to take the power of arrest when somebody fails to obey a police instruction to leave the exclusion zone. At the moment, police have the power of arrest only if they feel that somebody is about to commit another offence in that exclusion zone. 
If that explanation is not sufficient, I might add some more information, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are just as keen as they are to ensure that if somebody has been issued with a non-molestation or restraining order and they breach it, swift action can be taken by the police in terms of arrest. The current law allows for that, and therefore there is no need for the amendment.

David Heath: Clearly, there is nothing between us in terms of our intention. The Minister tells me that my amendment is unnecessary and of course I accept her advice. I do not see the specific power within the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act, which suggests that it must be either in other general legislation, or within the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. If she could either let me know by intervention or writing, so that I can check that the matter is covered, I shall be delighted. I certainly do not wish to trouble the Committee further if I am trying to correct a mischief which does not exist.

Hazel Blears: As I understand it, the provisions on the non-molestation orders are in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act amends. That is the reason why his amendment is technically defective, because he is seeking to amend legislation which does not contain the primary power in terms of the non-molestation and restraining orders. It is also why he cannot find the substantive provisions in the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004.

David Heath: Although I did not advertise the deficiencies in my amendment when moving it, it did occur to me that it needed to be an amendment to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 rather than what I had suggested.

Tony McWalter: I am deeply perplexed by what the Minister has just said. Clause 101 says that an arrest can be made to protect a child or other vulnerable person from the individual in question. If someone wearing a tag goes into a certain area when they have an order not to do so, I cannot for the life of me see why they cannot be arrested. The whole of clause 103 therefore seems unnecessary.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman raises a question that the Minister will have to answer. Given his comments in Committee, his general position appears to be that everybody should be arrested in all circumstances. The Minister does not seem to share that intention, as she has been at pains to assure us.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Clause 103 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 104 - Search warrants: premises

Andrew Mitchell: I beg to move amendment No. 287, in clause 104, page 69, line 40, leave out subsections (2) to (4) and insert—
 '(1A) After section 8 (power of justice of the peace to authorise entry and search of premises), insert— 
 ''8A Specific premises and all premises warrants 
 (1) If on an application made by a constable a judge of the High Court or a Circuit judge is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing— 
(a) that a serious arrestable offence has been committed; and 
(b) (i) that there is material on one or more premises specified in the application which is likely to be of substantial value (whether by itself or together with other material) to the investigation of the offence (in which case the application is for a specific premises warrant); or 
(ii) that there is material on any premises occupied or controlled by a person specified in the application, including such sets of premises as are so specified) which is likely to be of substantial value (whether by itself or together with other material) to the investigations of the offence (in which case the application is for an all premises warrant); and 
(c) that the material is likely to be relevant evidence; and 
(d) that it does not consist of or include items subject to legal privilege, excluded material or special procedure material; and 
(e) that any of the conditions specified in subsection (3) below applies, 
he may issue a warrant authorising a constable to enter and search the premises. 
 (2) Without prejudice to the satisfaction of the requirements set out in subsection (1), no application for an all premises warrant under subsection (1) is to be granted unless a judge of the High Court or a Circuit judge is further satisfied that— 
(a) there are reasonable grounds for believing that it is necessary to search premises occupied or controlled by the person in question which are not specified in the application in order to find the material; and 
(b) it is not reasonably practicable to specify in the application all the premises which he occupies or controls and which might need to be searched.''.'.

Marion Roe: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 147, in clause 104, page 70, line 11, after 'premises', insert 'reasonably believed to be'.

Andrew Mitchell: Amendment No. 287 would require a specific-premises warrant and an all-premises search warrant to be issued by a High Court judge or a circuit judge, as opposed to a justice of the peace. Amendment No. 147 deals with the danger of searches being unlawful unless the amendment is included in the Bill.
It has been a principle of English common law for hundreds of years that an individual's privacy in his premises can be invaded only where a warrant to enter and search has been judicially sanctioned. For that reason, the warrant must be crystal clear about the extent of the invasion that is permitted to take place. The all-premises warrant, in particular, represents a significant erosion of that principle, because the identity of the premises to be searched will be not be specified. 
At present, it is not uncommon for the police to enter and search premises belonging to a target and to discover from material found there that the target occupies or controls other residential or commercial premises where further valuable material could be stored. Typically in that situation, they return to court and obtain a warrant to enable them to enter and search the new premises. The need to obtain a new warrant creates further paperwork and delays the investigation, affording the target the opportunity of removing material from the new premises before an additional search warrant has been granted. The ability to obtain an all-premises warrant would obviate the need for the police to return to a justice of the peace in such circumstances. However, because of the enhanced invasion of privacy involved in an all-premises warrant, it should, at the very least, be scrutinised most carefully by a senior judge, such as a High Court judge or a circuit judge, before it is granted. That is the key purpose of the amendment, which operates by inserting a new clause into PACE. The Government's proposal to amend the existing section 8 will work only if justices of the peace are to grant the new species of warrant. 
With our probing amendment we wish to ensure the correct safeguards for the privacy of our constituents. We are wary of a Government who have allowed a number of intrusive powers, particularly in Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Act 2004, which we considered in towards the end of the last Session. We want the Minister to reassure us that our fears are unwarranted.

Jonathan Djanogly: By its very nature, the all-premises warrant will be open to interpretation, to the extent that the certainty that attaches to a single-premises warrant will be lacking. Subsection (14), which would become new section 8A(2) under the amendment, says that the judge may not issue such an all-premises warrant unless he is satisfied that
''that there are reasonable grounds for believing that it is necessary to search premises''. 
What does ''reasonable'' mean in that context? There may be a difference between what a judge finds reasonable when a warrant is issued in the courtroom and what the police think is reasonable when an incident takes place and they feel that a premises needs to be searched; that disparity could lead to court cases. We are talking about a new type of order, so the potential for disputes about what is considered reasonable in those different circumstances is accentuated. Do the Government intend to issue guidance on such matters?

Hazel Blears: I shall deal with amendment No. 147 before amendment No. 287. The exercise of the power of entry on to premises is, like the power of arrest, a serious power that the police exercise. The exercise of that power is an intrusion into people's rights, so it is important that hon. Members have raised such issues. It is appropriate that there should be proper safeguards in the exercise and granting of such powers.
Amendment No. 147 proposes that when an all-premises warrant has been issued, a constable can apply to an officer of the rank of inspector or above to enter premises that he reasonably believes are occupied or controlled by the person specified in the application. Amendment No. 147, tabled by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, would lower the threshold for the safeguard, because the premises would only have to be ''reasonably believed'' to be occupied or controlled by the person specified in that application. 
In the way in which we framed the legislation, we are saying that the magistrate must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that material that is likely to be of substantial value to the investigation of an indictable offence is on the premises occupied or controlled by the specified person. Under the safeguards in the Bill, if the premises are not specified in the warrant, because it was not possible to do so when it is issued, the prior written authority of an officer of the rank of inspector or above is needed when the warrant is used. The constable must satisfy the inspector that the premises that he wants to enter and search are occupied or controlled. Amendment No. 147 would lower that high threshold, so that the constable would only have to reasonably believe that the premises were occupied and controlled by the person specified, rather than satisfy the inspector that the premises were in fact occupied and controlled by that person. I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider that important issue. 
Amendment No. 287, on the other hand, seeks to limit multi-premises and all-premises warrants to an application to the High Court or a circuit judge. Granting warrants has always been a matter for  magistrates and justices of the peace. We need appropriate safeguards, but I do not accept that in such circumstances the matter should be for the High Court or a circuit judge only to decide. Magistrates are perfectly capable of exercising their power in a proper way, being fully cognisant of the rights of other parties. 
Subsection (7), which would insert new subsection (2A) into section 15 of PACE, deals with an issue that was of concern to me. I did not want the police simply to apply for warrants in a completely open fashion, saying that they needed different premises included automatically. Under proposed new subsection (2A)(b) officers must still, even when multi-premises warrants are applied for, specify as many sets of premises as is reasonably practicable. We are bearing down on them and telling them that they cannot simply go on a fishing expedition for a set of multi-premises warrants, on the basis of a vague idea that there might be some goods worth having a look at in those premises. We are saying that where they can they must specify the premises, and that they must seek multi-premises warrants only if it is not possible to specify the premises at that time. 
I think that the safeguards in the Bill are appropriate, and I see no reason why a magistrate should be considered unsuitable to authorise a multi-premises warrant when, in fact, the magistrate would simply authorise one warrant for four premises rather than have to authorise the searching of each set of premises separately. Such a view is not necessarily casting aspersions on magistrates—I am sure that the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield does not mean to do that—but I do not think that it is necessary for someone of the calibre of a High Court or circuit judge to conduct the process. 
The process is about going on a fishing expedition looking for warrants. The police need to specify premises wherever possible, but sometimes modern criminals move their goods around from place to place and in those circumstances, if the police are to be effective and efficient, they need warrants that extend to more than one premises at once. It is on those grounds that I ask the Committee to reject the amendment. I do not think that the provisions extend the powers of the police to the point of infringing people's proper right to occupy their premises peacefully, and they are effective and proportionate powers to enable the police to fight the kind of criminal activity that goes on too often.

Andrew Mitchell: On amendment No. 147 the Minister has made a very reasonable case, and I am happy not to press it.
As for amendment No. 287, the Committee is right to ask questions, because the power is more important. If we are to strive, as ever, for the proper balance between the power of the state and the power of our constituents as individuals, the permitting of the extra warrant and its associated additional powers gives rise to a need for adequate safeguards. That is why Her Majesty's Opposition decided to test the issue by suggesting that a higher level of warrant should be  dealt with by a higher level of court. The Minister has, however, beguiled me with her very reasonable response, and we shall consider the point that she so reasonably made, and return to it, if necessary, on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Clause 104 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 105 - Search warrants: other amendments

Andrew Mitchell: I beg to move amendment No. 289, in clause 105, page 72, line 1,
leave out subsection (2) and insert— 
 '(1A) After section 8 (power of justice of the peace to authorise entry and search of premises), insert— 
 ''8B Search warrants and multiple entries 
 (1) Any warrant granted under section 8 or section 8A may authorize entry to and search of premises on more than one occasion if, on the application, a judge of the High Court or a Circuit judge is satisfied that it is necessary to authorize multiple entries in order to achieve the purpose for which he issues the warrant. 
 (2) No warrant issued under section 8B(1) may specify more than three entries to the same premises under a period of 28 days. 
 (3) Where a warrant authorizes multiple entries, the number of entries must be limited to a maximum of two further entries to the same premises within a period of 28 calendar days from the date when the first entry took place.''.'. 
I notice that the amendment is listed in the amendment paper as having been tabled by a Mr. Andrew McKenzie. I could develop a bit of a complex, although I am resisting it, because a speech that I made in Westminster Hall last week, when the Minister responded for the Government, did not even appear in Hansard the following day, as I saw when I turned somewhat nervously to read it. 
I can speak to the amendment quickly, because much of my point has already been made. It is similar to amendment No. 287. I do not need to labour the point; we are anxious to protect our constituents with the necessary privacy and safeguards. The amendment deals with the permission granted to the police in clause 105 to re-enter premises after a search warrant has been executed. There are good reasons in practice for permitting multiple entries under the same search warrant, but as with clause 104, the provisions represent a significant further increase in the invasive powers of the police. For that reason, we wanted to test whether a higher court should make the necessary judgment. The number of multiple entries under the same search warrant needs to be restricted to a maximum of two further entries during 28 days from the date of entry. Can the Minister satisfy me on this clause as she did on the last?

Jonathan Djanogly: I should like briefly to add to what my hon. Friend has said. The amendment also needs to be looked at in the context of subsection (8), which extends the period for execution of the warrant from one month to three months. To the extent that an all-premises warrant will be wider than a specific premises warrant, there is accordingly a greater chance of the  circumstances changing before the warrant expires. Will the Minister address the reasons for the extension of the warrant?

Hazel Blears: I dealt with the issue of the level of judge in my previous comments. I, too, hope that I can beguile the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield with regard to his amendment. It has been properly tabled, in that it probes the safeguards of the new power. That power is indeed intrusive: it extends the period of the search warrant from one month to three months, and provides that there can be a series of multiple entries to the premises concerned. A similar series of safeguards relates to the exercise of this power to those regarding multi-premises search warrants. Again, the magistrate has to be satisfied, and where the officer wants to exercise the warrant on a number of separate occasions, they have to satisfy a superior officer of at least the rank of inspector to enable permission to be granted. That is a sufficient safeguard in justifying their actions at every stage of the process. We have to reach a balance between safeguarding people's privacy and proper concerns and giving police officers the tools to get on and do their job.
I say to the hon. Member for Huntingdon that criminals these days are sophisticated enough to move their property around and seek to hide it from legitimate searches. They can not only move their property around from premises to premises, but temporarily take it away and then return it to the same premises, in which case it would be necessary to allow multiple entry on the same set of warrants. A 28-day limit on the warrant would mean the police had to go back to court time and again. It is a matter of striking the balance as to whether we feel that a month is the absolute maximum we could allow for a warrant, or whether we are prepared, in circumstances subject to judicial and administrative oversight, to be more flexible.

Jonathan Djanogly: While criminals may have become more sophisticated, so has technology for prosecutors and the police. There should be no more difficulty in getting to the magistrate, who it appears will deal with the matter, than in the past.

Hazel Blears: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. He made a similar point in speaking to the previous amendment, when he asked what would happen if circumstances changed. It is a genuine and legitimate point. If an officer applies to court for a warrant based on a certain set of circumstances and the circumstances change, the officer will need to go back to the court. The warrant could be challenged if the circumstances were sufficiently different, as it could be claimed that it was obtained on evidence that had subsequently changed fundamentally.
We seek a degree of flexibility, but we do not want to go beyond the boundaries that would make it necessary to renew the authority for granting the warrant. We are keen to specify the need as tightly as we can, as it will give us the legitimacy to ask for a  wider degree of flexibility. Provided that we meet our obligations as far as we can, it is perfectly proper to allow the police to ask for some flexibility. It is not proper to take a free-for-all, broad-brush position, and that is not what we seek to do. We think that we have the balance right; the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield will have to consider whether he wishes to press the amendment to a Division if he feels that we have not done so. With that in mind, I have tried to give the Committee as many reassurances as I can.

Andrew Mitchell: I have listened with care to the Minister. She makes the same points that she made on clause 104. We had to consider the matter because it is an extension from one month to three months. On balance, however, I am happy to let it stand. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Clause 105 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clause 106 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 107 - Photographing of suspects etc.

Hazel Blears: I beg to move amendment No. 256, in clause 107, page 73, line 33, leave out
'provided in subsections (2) and (3)' 
and insert 'follows'.

Marion Roe: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 298, in clause 107, page 73, line 34, leave out 'and (3)' and insert 'to (4)'.
Government amendment No. 257.

Hazel Blears: The Government amendments are designed to assist in the enforcement of court orders, and particularly the collection of fines. One of the Government's key priorities in the criminal justice system is to improve the enforcement of criminal penalties. Fines are a priority. The Carter review said that fines have the potential to be a low-cost but highly effective form of punishment and recommended that they should be used more often. It is fair to say that fines have fallen into disrepute in recent years because of the lack of enforcement, and as a result, courts have been less likely to use fines as a penalty. Making enforcement more rigorous is therefore important, because we know that fines will be used more only if the judiciary, the public and offenders believe that they are a credible punishment.
The credibility of fines depends on effective enforcement. Magistrates and judges will use fines only if they are confident that they will be paid. The amendments are part of an ongoing programme to drive up the rate of payment and improve fine collection. We have been successful in the past 12 to 18 months in driving up the level of payment, which has risen from about 65 per cent. to almost 80 per cent. 
That is good, but more can obviously be done. Last year, the Government introduced measures in the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 to  give enforcement teams in magistrates courts power to enter and search premises; to request data from individuals and organisations to help trace offenders; and to transfer community penalty breach warrants out of their area for enforcement purposes. 
The amendments will allow the photograph that the courts are already entitled to request from the police for in-court purposes to be used for the purposes of enforcement. The police can already supply a photograph to the courts for the purposes of prosecution, so that the court knows that the person in the dock is the offender. The amendments would allow a copy of that photograph to be requested for use by the court's enforcement team, after a sentence has been passed, to help ensure that the sentence is carried out. 
The provision will be hugely welcomed by enforcement teams. At the moment, when an enforcement team knocks on the door of a fine defaulter and asks to speak to John Smith, if John Smith answers the door but chooses to deny his identity, it cannot be sure that the man before them is the one who should be paying the fine. Having access to a photograph will be extremely helpful. In a number of cases—between 5 per cent. and 15 per cent. each year—offenders who have defaulted on fines dispute their identity. That happens in as many as 13,500 cases, and the courts could lose between £600,000 and £1.8 million each year in uncollected fines as a result of not being able to identify the person who is being traced. 
At the moment, enforcement teams have to go through the process of calling a police officer to help identify fine defaulters. If they have a photograph, disputes about identity can easily be resolved. The amendments are common sense, and they will help us to make fines a much more credible punishment for the courts to use and enforce in future.

David Heath: I wish simply to say that I accept entirely the common sense of the Minister's proposal. The only reason that I have risen to speak is that my amendment No. 298, which is a drafting amendment, is in this group. I do not feel disposed to say a great deal about it at this point.

Dominic Grieve: I agree entirely with what the Government are seeking to do in this aspect of the clause, although some other aspects cause me concern. However, we will examine those in a moment. The principle that the Minister has laid out is one that I wholly endorse.
Amendment agreed to.

David Heath: I beg to move amendment No. 187, in clause 107, page 73, line 39, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 74.
I am pleased to see that the amendment is supported by the Conservative members of the Committee. I rather hoped that the Minister would put her name to it as well. I drew attention to the matter on Second Reading. This part of the clause is extraordinarily  curiously worded—perhaps I am missing a self-evident point, but I have read and re-read it and cannot for the life of me see why it is worded in such a way. It reads: 
 ''A person falling within subsection (1B) below may, on the occasion of the relevant event referred to in subsection (1B), be photographed elsewhere than at a police station'' 
That would be all right up to that point, but then it says 
''(a) with the appropriate consent; or'', 
(b) if the appropriate consent is withheld or it is not practicable to obtain it, without it.'' 
I can understand having a provision for taking a photograph with consent and I can understand a provision for taking it without consent. However, to set out both options seems to be entirely redundant. As I say, I might have missed a self-evident truth and the Minister may be able to enlighten me about what circumstances do not fall into one of the two categories of ''with consent'' or ''without consent'', but I am at a loss to understand what further category she might envisage. She will have to explain it to me in words that I can understand.

Dominic Grieve: I share the hon. Gentleman's puzzlement. The only conclusion that I could possibly draw when I looked at the clause was that one had to ask first; but if, having asked, one was told that there was no consent, one could go ahead anyway. However, I agree that it is curiously worded.
I would be grateful to hear a little more from the Minister about the fact that the clause involves photographing somebody elsewhere than at a police station. That raises slight anxieties in my mind about how that will be carried out in practice. I realise that a surreptitious photograph of somebody can be taken elsewhere than at a police station, but a police station is a controlled environment where there is a system for photographing somebody and for putting a crime number under his name if he has been arrested. To do all that in the street is rather more complicated. Furthermore, one also has to bear in mind that the police do not have a right to humiliate people in public, and photographing a person in a coercive environment elsewhere than at a police station could be precisely that. I have a wider concern about how the measure will operate in practice.

Hazel Blears: Perhaps I can deal with the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome first. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield is absolutely right; it is a matter of asking first. That is why the provision is drafted as it is. I understand that it is virtually identical to other provisions in PACE relating to identification. It is therefore a repetition of an established form of drafting.
I asked whether it was a completely rhetorical position to be in. We have had a discussion about policing by consent, which is the basis on which we operate in this country, and the relationship between a citizen and the police officer is at the heart of the effectiveness of our policing. Therefore, the Bill provides that our first recourse is always to ask ''Can we do this with your consent?'' and if that consent is not forthcoming, we can go onto to the next stage and do it without consent. It is important to us, however, that that question is asked. The Committee have  talked about the messages we send out in the way in which we draft our legislation, and this is an important message: when are dealing with the public, one should always ask first and, hopefully, ask nicely; only then should one use the more coercive powers, if they are necessary. So it is therefore important that we resist the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome's amendment. Although I am grateful to him; on Second Reading, he referred to it as 
''a quintessential piece of Home Office drafting''—[Official Report, 7 December 2004; Vol. 428, c.1069.] 
which gave me advance notice to take the matter up with my officials. 
The hon. Member for Beaconsfield makes the perfectly reasonable point that that we do not want to see people being humiliated in the street. There is no question of covert filming under the clause; it deals with the overt taking of photographs. These days, with the available technology, there is no reason why that cannot be done perfectly properly. The provision is part of a move towards doing more and more things outside the police station, whether that is granting street bail, issuing fixed penalty notices or taking photographs. We have some other provisions later on about fingerprints. Our aim is to ensure that police officers are not tied up for hours on end having to take people back to the station and spending two or three hours there, but can spend their time on front-line policing duties, which is what the police want to do. This is all of a piece, and coherent with our general thrust of being able to do things outwith the police station that, in the past, have been done in a fairly bureaucratic organisational way. I hope that move has the support of all parties, so that we can get our police doing the work that the public want them to do. I therefore ask the Committee to resist the amendment.

David Heath: Why not go the whole hog and say ''with the appropriate consent asked for in the appropriate way,'' or, ''the constable will be polite in doing so''? We expect certain standards of our constables, and where they are not forthcoming, such things can sometimes be put in the PACE guidance and codes of conduct which, as we have discussed, have an enormous effect on the application of PACE. There is, therefore, provision for ensuring that a constable asks for consent in the appropriate terms. Nothing is added to the power—that is my point: it is redundant in terms of the power. It could just as easily be said that photographing may happen without the appropriate consent, just as fingerprinting is under the subsequent clause. The police invite consent, which the Minister is absolutely right to draw attention to, and we are at one on that. It could be a subject for guidance under the code of conduct.
I do not resile for one moment from my view that this is a rather silly way of putting the provision into statute when it could achieved other means, but if the  Minister is attached to the wording, who am I to stand in her way? I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Amendment made: No. 257, page 74, line 22, at end insert— 
 '( ) In subsection (4)(a), after ''prosecution'' insert, ''or to the enforcement of a sentence''. 
 ( ) In subsection (5), after paragraph (b) insert ''; and 
(c) ''sentence'' includes any order made by a court in England and Wales when dealing with an offender in respect of his offence.''.'.—[Ms Blears.]

David Heath: I beg to move amendment No. 297, in clause 107, page 74, line 25, at end insert—
 '(4) After subsection (6A) (inserted by subsection (3) of this section) insert— 
 ''(6B) This section does not apply to— 
(a) a person aged under 17, or 
(b) a member of any group which is defined in a code of practice issued under this Act as a vulnerable group.''.'.

Marion Roe: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 299, in clause 108, page 74, line 29, leave out '(4)' and insert '(4A)'.
No. 300, in clause 108, page 75, line 6, at end insert— 
 '(4A) In subsection (9), at the end insert— 
''or 
(c) applies to— 
(i) a person aged under 17, or 
(ii) a member of any group which is defined in a code of practice issued under this Act as a vulnerable group.''.'. 
No. 301, in clause 109, page 76, line 28, at end insert— 
 '(9) When the person is— 
(a) aged under 17, or 
(b) a member of any group which is defined in a code of practice issued under this Act as a vulnerable group. 
no impression of the person's footwear may be taken except in the presence of an appropriate adult (as defined in a code of practice issued under this Act.'.

David Heath: I hope that amendment No. 298, which was placed in an earlier group, might be taken into account.
These are probing amendments. I do not intend to put them to a vote, but I would like the Minister's advice. These are serious issues that are a matter of some concern to various groups outside the House that deal with children. As the Minister may be aware, the amendments were suggested by the Standing Committee for Youth Justice. It has a clear point of concern. Under the present PACE codes, additional safeguards should be in place when young or vulnerable people are required to undergo any intrusive act at the request of a constable; usually the requirement is that an appropriate adult is with them if an young or vulnerable person is taken to a police station for those activities to be undertaken. The concern has been expressed that those protections appear to go out of the window under the new provisions, unless there is an express provision within this part of the Bill to bring back the requirements under the PACE codes, thereby ensuring that the Government meet their obligations under the United Nations convention on the rights of the child.

Hazel Blears: I shall deal with the amendments relating to photographs, then fingerprints and then the footwear impressions. Clearly the amendments have the same objective, which is the protection of juveniles and people with mental health problems who could be vulnerable. Amendments Nos. 297 and 298 would prevent the taking of photographs of juveniles and other vulnerable persons. The police should be able to retain accurate records and take photographs of those who come into contact with the criminal justice system. Regrettably, juveniles are responsible for a significant proportion of the crime in this country, so the police should be able to take photographs. I understand the point about having an appropriate adult present, but taking photographs is one way to ascertain identity which the police should be able to do.
The same argument applies to the amendments to clause 108 on fingerprints. The clause is about taking fingerprints away from the police station in a way that helps us to ascertain people's identity. If they could not check the identity of people under 17, the police would be prevented from dealing with a whole range of juvenile crime and inhibit their operational effectiveness. One of the amendments is worded in such a way that it would prevent the police from taking fingerprints from juveniles and people with mental health problems in any of the circumstances currently covered by section 61 of PACE, even in a police station. The amendment goes too far—further than the hon. Gentleman intends. I know that the Committee would not want to support that position. 
The law allows officers to take fingerprints and a non-intimate sample from persons aged under 17 who have been arrested, charged or convicted for a recordable offence without an appropriate adult necessarily being present. I emphasise the word necessarily. The power is there, but I know that officers can and do exercise their discretion. In such  circumstances, they might well decide to wait until an adult is present before exercising those powers. It is for the officer to decide in each case. 
The power to take fingerprints somewhere other than at the station will be welcomed by police officers, and I should not like to see it limited in the way proposed by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome. The powers should be available universally for persons of all ages, because the police can use their discretion. It weighs heavily with me that if the police do not have access to such powers for photographs, prints and footwear impressions, more people might be arrested, because some of the powers are designed to ascertain identity on the spot. If somebody's identity can be proven and he can be shown not to have been involved in an offence, he can be free to go. Now, people sometimes have to wait for three or four hours before their identity can be properly ascertained. They are dragged into a police station, and it is as much of an imposition on them as it is on the police officers involved. 
I understand the hon. Gentleman's intention to protect the rights of juveniles and those who are vulnerable because of their mental health problems, but it is necessary for the police to have the powers. The matters are covered by the statutory codes under PACE and those codes are the appropriate vehicle through which to ensure that the police have appropriate guidance.

David Heath: Can the Minister say whether the PACE codes of conduct and the guidance therein apply not only to constables in the execution of their powers, but to the various other persons who will be permitted to take photographs, such as a CSO who is issuing a fixed penalty notice and the accredited persons from a local authority in the case of a penalty notice for truancy. Somebody who has been asked to wait by a CSO will not necessarily have committed a crime, yet there is provision for photographs to be taken for identification purposes. I want to be sure that the codes of conduct to which the Minister referred apply to the range of people who are now to be empowered to take such actions.

Hazel Blears: I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. The PACE provisions relating to constables also apply to the other people who exercise such powers. It is the power being exercised that is important, not the individual doing it; therefore the safeguards and provisions in PACE and its codes of practice apply to the range of individuals who might exercise the powers in order to ascertain a person's identity.
Having given the hon. Gentleman the reassurance that the provisions will be considered fully in the codes of practice, I ask him to consider withdrawing the amendment.

David Heath: I am grateful for the Minister's response on the codes of conduct. That is absolutely crucial. One of the matters raised by the groups who expressed concerns was the incompatibility, as they saw it, of the new arrangements with existing codes of conduct  under PACE. I shall look carefully at what the Minister has said, and wait with anticipation for any revision to the codes.
I am happy to withdraw the amendment; it was never my intention to press it to a Division. I understand the Minister's argument that it would undermine a wider provision than one on the specific area that I have sought to probe. As she understands, that was not my intention. I hope that we shall return to the matter at a later stage, possibly in another place. The organisations that contacted me on the subject will look carefully at what the Minister has said. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Jonathan Djanogly: I thank the Minister for sending members of the Committee a letter about a demonstration of the technology involved. In the letter, she states:
 ''I should however like to stress that fingerprints taken using the new equipment will not be retained or added to NAFIS if they are not already on the system.'' 
Briefly, how will that work in practice?

Hazel Blears: First, I apologise to the Committee for sending such a late invitation to the demonstration from the Police Information Technology Organisation of the system of which it is so proud. If hon. Members would find it useful, I am more than happy to organise another demonstration at some point when they may be able to attend.

David Heath: Perhaps on an occasion when we are not discussing the Constitutional Reform Bill on the Floor of the House.

Hazel Blears: I entirely accept that point. It seems that hon. Members involved in home affairs and constitutional matters are never out of either the Chamber or the Committee Room.
I have seen a demonstration of the equipment. It is a tremendous technological advance and will be hugely useful to the police, particularly when used in conjunction with automatic number plate recognition, which can trigger an investigation. Fingerprints can be taken and matched on a database. I am told that information on fingerprints can be sent back within about four or five minutes from a mobile unit inside a police vehicle, and that will save an enormous amount of police officers' time. 
The reason why we do not propose to retain fingerprints in those circumstances is because they are taken pre-arrest and are intended to help make a quick identification on the street and determine whether the matter needs to be taken further. Fingerprints taken post-arrest are retained, but that is further up the chain. The balance of civil liberties means that we should not retain them when they are taken pre-arrest.

Jonathan Djanogly: I appreciate that the fingerprints are not meant to be retained, but my question was how will the person from whom they are taken know that they have been destroyed?

Hazel Blears: I do not have a complete answer to that to hand. I asked whether a record will be made of the fact that fingerprints had been taken, and I understand that such a record will be made but prints will not be retained. I am happy to find further information for the hon. Gentleman about whether a person will be given a receipt or whether a ticket will be written out saying that fingerprints have been taken, but I am not sure of the practicalities. I have no doubt that my officials will provide me with further information and I will write to the hon. Gentleman with those details.

Dominic Grieve: On a point of order, Dame Marion. Which clause are we discussing? We are under the impression that we are discussing clause 108 stand part, but we have not yet considered the amendments to that clause.

Marion Roe: We are debating clause 107, as amended.

Dominic Grieve: I am grateful, Dame Marion. We can now have a repeat performance of the same debate on the next clause.
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 107, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 108 - Fingerprints

David Heath: I beg to move amendment No. 188, in clause 108, page 74, line 31, after 'fingerprints', insert
'for the purpose of establishing identity'.

Marion Roe: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 304, in clause 108, page 75, leave out lines 3 and 4.

David Heath: I am not sure whether I am supposed to pretend I did not hear the previous debate. I cannot do so, as the premature interjection by the hon. Member for Huntingdon means that we have already had some helpful assurances from the Minister.
The purpose of my amendment is to make the clause read: 
''a constable may take a person's fingerprints'' 
for the purpose of establishing identity 
''without the appropriate consent'', 
and so on. The only reason for doing so, which might be self-evident, is to establish the purpose referred to later, in subsection (7), which says 
''fingerprints taken from a person by virtue of section 61(6A) above must be destroyed as soon as they have fulfilled the purpose for which they were taken''. 
The amendment is a safeguard to ensure that the purpose for which they are taken is immediate identification of that person, and not in order to create a databank of fingerprints or for any other purpose.  The event that will trigger the fingerprints' destruction is the identification having been made, so there will be no question of establishing a back-door fingerprint bank of people who have not been convicted of any offence, or even charged with one.

Dominic Grieve: I take the view that the hon. Gentleman's amendment might be otiose, because new subsection (6C) makes pretty clear the purposes for which the fingerprints may be taken. The reason for my probing amendment was that I wanted to know a bit more about the system for taking a fingerprint other than at the police station. I, too, was involved with the Constitutional Reform Bill yesterday and had no opportunity of viewing the technology, so I note the Minister's reassurance on that point.
There is something slightly odd about the provision. I can never remember who served on which Committee, so the Minister might not recollect that some time ago we departed from the old rule that one's fingerprint could be retained for police identification purposes only if one had been convicted of an offence. We changed, for reasons that have always caused me some slight concern, to the principle that if one were arrested and fingerprinted at a police station and charged, one's fingerprints could be retained even if one was subsequently acquitted or the proceedings were discontinued. The current position is, I think, that they can be retained if one is arrested and taken to a police station. 
That is gradually contributing towards the state building up a databank of fingerprints that will include the prints of individuals who have never been convicted of any criminal offence. What strikes me as quite surprising, in view of the Government's past record in this matter, is that, having made provision for fingerprints being taken for identification purposes at a place other than a police station and without arrest taking place, the Minister has felt sufficiently squeamish to say that fingerprints thus taken will not be retained. I said to whichever Minister it was who took through the last Bill in respect of which we considered fingerprints—the Criminal Justice Act 2003, I think—that the arbitrary nature of fingerprint-taking had got to such a point that there ought to be a special ceremony at the age of 16 where one had to present oneself at a police station and hand over one's fingerprints and DNA for the common good.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Precisely what my hon. Friend is now railing against is being introduced in the Committee next door: it is called an national identity card. Not only fingerprints, but biometric details will be stored on a central register held by the state.

Dominic Grieve: My hon. Friend is, of course, quite right. That is why I highlight the slight oddity of a circumstance in which the state lays its hands on one's fingerprints by the roadside when checking your identity, but the Government, in their wisdom, have decided that those fingerprints should not be retained. I find that quite surprising. I suppose I should welcome  it, because I do not want the powers of the state to be extended further, but I am interested in ascertaining the Government's reasoning on the issue.

Tony McWalter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dominic Grieve: However, before I find out the Minister's reasoning, I will find out the reasoning of the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead.

Tony McWalter: In the absence of the universal taking of fingerprints, retaining prints is particularly odious and invidious when people have been falsely accused. That happened to one of my constituents, who suffered the trauma of being arrested, followed only later by a letter of apology from the bonkers lady who had made the accusation. My constituent's prints remain on file. She would not mind if everyone's prints were on file, but she objects very strongly to her prints being a record of that terrible and traumatic event. Perhaps we should think about what we should do in the next phase of the process.

Dominic Grieve: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I hope that he will not take it amiss if I say that I am all the more grateful because I have not previously received much support from Labour Members when I have made such representations. The Government's approach has been that it is right to expand the national database, that that database helps in the prevention of crime and that it is therefore appropriate to retain the fingerprints of those who have not been convicted. That view causes me considerable anxiety. I suspect that there is quite a large and growing number of cases such as the hon. Gentleman cited. The victims of the process—that is what they are—will feel very unhappy that they are being treated as second-class citizens without justification.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman: if the necessity for such a system is so great, it would be better—without necessarily introducing identity cards, about which I have some serious reservations—to be honest and say that everyone has to supply their fingerprints so that they can be checked in the event of their being suspected of having committed a criminal offence. I am not sure that I would be happy with that situation, but I would be more comfortable with it than I am with the current one. I am fascinated to hear the hon. Gentleman's story, because it chimes exactly with other stories that I have heard about people who feel that they have been victimised by the process. That is why, as I said at the start, I am interested to hear the Minister's reasons why if people are stopped at the roadside and the opportunity arises to get their prints, their prints will be excluded from the process. Why should they be treated differently from someone who is arrested but never charged?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am sorry that we are re-rehearsing all these arguments, but it has given the Minister time to think and obtain all the answers. In that sense, the Committee will benefit from the rehearsal of the arguments and the debate.
The amendment relates to the need to restrict CSOs in their ability to take fingerprints and impressions of footwear. Such restrictions should be applied on civil liberty grounds and on the ground that a CSO is less experienced to make judgements when taking fingerprints and impressions of footwear, which could provoke offence from the innocent victim, especially when the CSO is dealing with people from ethnic minorities, children or other vulnerable sensitive groups. Such criticism and related damage to police-community relations could increase if CSOs used the powers in an unreasonable fashion. Perhaps the Minister can give us some answers as to how she expects the powers to be used, particularly in relation to CSOs.

Hazel Blears: The primary purpose of clause 108 is to try to provide a quick way to help the police to establish a suspect's identity, but amendment No. 188 would restrict the use of fingerprints taken away from a police station, and the police would lose the chance of detecting more crime. When the technology is fully developed, when the police go into the NAFIS—national automated fingerprint identification system—database, any new fingerprints will be subject to a speculative search against the database of fingerprint information recovered from crime scenes. We are not at that stage yet, but we envisage that that could be done in future. Where a match is found it might lead to a suspect being arrested for another, earlier offence that might not otherwise have been detected.
The aim is to ensure that we get the balance right between giving the police the power to take fingerprints using technology, trying to match those fingerprints to enable them to detect as much crime as they can and taking account of concern about protecting the civil liberties of the individuals involved, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield. 
I was asked about an apparent inconsistency. When people who are arrested, taken to a police station and charged with an offence are subsequently acquitted, their fingerprints are retained. He wanted to know why we do not propose to retain the fingerprints acquired in relation to the provisions before us. The answer is that we have exercised a judgment; fingerprints will be  taken earlier in the criminal chain of events, when the constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that someone might be involved in an offence. On that basis, we made the fine judgment that we would not seek to retain the fingerprints because the intervention comes earlier than if the power of arrest had been exercised, the person taken to a police station and charged and the charge proceeded with.

Tony McWalter: As we are all concerned about those who are victims of malicious and nefarious practices, I wish to emphasise to my hon. Friend that false accusation is one of the most maleficent ways of destroying someone's life. It is vital that a false accusation is put clearly into the system as such, and that all trace of such an accusation is withdrawn. In the case I mentioned to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, I naturally sought from the area commander of police an apology for my constituent's wrongful arrest, but the fingerprint still lies on file for far too long as a register of what was a very traumatic event for my constituent. I urge my hon. Friend to give proper weight in her deliberations to false accusation.

Hazel Blears: I understand the important issue that my hon. Friend raises. I have absolutely no doubt that the matter to which he refers caused a huge amount of anguish and distress to his constituent. I am aware of similar cases, and I am also aware that the fingerprints are retained at the chief constable's discretion. Therefore, there is the possibility that my hon. Friend's constituent, no doubt ably assisted by him, could make representations to the chief constable that in the circumstances, it is appropriate that the fingerprints be disposed of.
There are many cases in which people who are acquitted go on to commit further crimes. It is a matter of getting the balance right. There are a number of examples of people in such circumstances who have had their fingerprints taken to try to identify them, and when those fingerprints have been compared with the NAFIS database, crime of the most serious kind has been solved. For example, a man arrested for a relatively minor assault in Lewisham gave false particulars. His fingerprints were taken at the police station using live scan technology, which showed that he was wanted in connection with an incident in Brixton in which a young woman was enticed into a crack den and subjected to a multiple gang rape. The crime was solved as a result of using the identification evidence. 
There are other similar cases. Someone arrested for aggravated burglary was found to be one of three suspects wanted in connection with an operation on a major gun crime in which someone had been shot in the neck and was subsequently in a coma for four months. These are serious matters, and yet again, I do not underestimate the need to get the balance right to ensure that police can use identification evidence to enable them to detect and solve more crime. We currently have 900,000 unmatched items of scenes of crime identification. We could solve an awful lot of those crimes if we tried to carry out identification. The Committee should not support the amendment tabled  by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, which would limit our ability to use the technology and fingerprints in that way and restrict the ability of the police to take the action that I have outlined. 
The hon. Member for Beaconsfield spoke to amendment No. 304, which would remove the requirement for a constable who takes fingerprints away from the police station to inform the suspect that his fingerprints will be subject to a speculative search and to make a record that the suspect has been informed. The amendment would not remove that obligation when fingerprints were taken at the station, and we feel that the same requirements should apply when a constable exercises those powers in the street. 
The provisions do not impose an unduly bureaucratic burden. I understand that people may feel concerned about officers having to record things, but an officer would make a record in his pocket book in any event, and it is perfectly proper that someone should have the safeguard of being informed that it is likely that their records will be used in the way specified. I ask the Committee, for the reasons that I have given, to resist the amendments. I think that the clause is entirely sensible. 
The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) asked whether CSOs would be able to take fingerprints. The answer is no. I reassure him that we consider the power to be of a status that should be limited to police constables.

David Heath: Generally in the course of the Committee's consideration of the Bill, I have been encouraged by what the Minister has said. I have no fundamental disagreement with her on the provision, but she has caused me some concern simply by her reasons for rejecting my amendment. Had she simply said that the words were otiose, as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield suggested, I should have been perfectly happy and said, ''Well, I knew that really, but it was an opportunity to get the debate on to the grounds that I wanted.''
The Minister said, however, that the amendment would unnecessarily restrict the use of fingerprints; that the prints could be used for purposes other than establishing identity; and that one of the prime functions of the power would be for a speculative trawling of the scenes of crime database to see whether the person involved had committed an offence of which they would not, by definition, be suspected by the arresting officer. 
Although I can understand that that is a good idea in investigatory terms, it is effectively prohibited by the clause. Subsection (7) provides, through proposed new subsection (1BA), that the prints 
''must be destroyed as soon as they have fulfilled the purpose for which they were taken.'' 
The purpose for which they would be taken would not be a speculative trawl of the database of scenes of crime, but establishing the identity of a person reasonably suspected of committing or attempting to commit an offence. Thus, they could not be used to establish the identity of someone who had committed  an offence for which there were no reasonable grounds for suspicion. It would pay to revisit the clause if the Minister's intention is what she said it was. 
We have had a useful debate about the national database of various forms of identification material. I very much agree with what the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead says on the matter—and I do not have many occasions to say that in this Committee. He is right: we have either national databases or databases that are firmly founded on the principle that someone has been convicted of an offence. We do not choose the people for whom there will be a database, and set up a partial database founded on the simple fact that they have been accused of something that has not resulted in a charge. 
That is a matter for serious concern.I was interested in the exchange about ID cards between the hon. Members for Cotswold and for Beaconsfield. I feel that there is a fifth column in the Conservative party against the party's position on identity cards, which was perhaps evidenced by the fact that, before Christmas, less than half the Opposition came out to vote as their leader required on the subject. Nevertheless, the party's position is clear: it supports identity cards, but there are we are. 
What the Minister said raises more questions than it answers, despite the fact that we might have had a satisfactory reply in the pre-emptive debate occasioned by the untimely intervention of the hon. Member for Huntingdon. I will read what the Minister said carefully. We may have entered into a slightly more confusing area of intention and confusion than she suspects, but for now I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Clause 108 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clauses 109 and 110 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 111 - Staff custody officers: designation

David Heath: I beg to move amendment No. 189, in clause 111, page 78, line 31, at end add—
 '(5) No person shall be designated as a custody officer under this section unless he has previously been a police officer of at least the rank of sergeant.'. 
We now come to one of the more controversial elements of the Bill—the Government's proposal for it to be permissible for civilians to act in the capacity of custody officers for the purposes of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The Minister will know that the proposal has occasioned considerable upset among the ranks of serving police officers, whose concerns are shared by a number of legal authorities. The Law Society has expressed its concerns, and some well-placed commentators on the systems that apply for custody have indicated how unhappy they are. I preface my further remarks by saying that I want a lot more custody suites—an issue that we have debated  previously. One of the difficulties for the police service, particularly in rural areas, is that insufficient custody suites are in operation. 
The effect of not having custody suites is twofold. If a police officer wishes to arrest someone and take them to a custody suite, they are often required to take that person a considerable distance. That is irksome in itself, but more importantly, it takes the police officer, who will be on duty, out of area for a significant period. For those of us who represent rural constituencies, the effect cannot be underestimated. Literally half a duty period can be taken up in transporting an arrested person to a custody suite, doing the necessary paperwork and then, hopefully, returning. 
That is a bad thing in itself in terms of police officers' abilities to do what we want them to do in the local community. However, it has a further malign effect, which is that a conscientious police officer, knowing that to be the case, will have to judge between making the arrest and thereby leaving the area for which they are responsible unprotected or not making the arrest and finding another form of disposal. There is therefore a perverse incentive not to make the arrest. 
Why do we not have enough custody suites? The reason is partly that they are expensive, which we understand. As fewer police stations are in operation and as police stations are smaller affairs than they used to be, so there are fewer custody suites. Moreover, it is often difficult to find the resources to provide the specialist custody officers who allow for the custody suite to be operational even if it exists. That is the situation in my own force area at present. There is a perfectly good custody suite in Frome police station that is not available for use because it has no custody sergeant, as the marginal capacity of the policing district to provide for a custody sergeant is not there in terms of the personnel available. The result is that a person arrested in Frome on a Friday or Saturday night has to be taken up to Bath or down to Yeovil, either of which takes an hour and a half to three hours out of a police officer's day. I understand that that is a significant argument in support of the Government's wish to revisit the whole subject of custody officers. 
I am not persuaded, however, that the Government have the right answer. The difficulty is that the custody sergeant, within the architecture of PACE, has a significant role to play. The custody officer is not simply the person who holds the key to the cell; they have to be responsible for the health and safety of the people who are detained in the cells, to know about the protection of evidence and all that goes with that, and most importantly, to make an assessment of the terms under which an arrest has been made, on the basis of their experience. On occasions, the custody officer will have to tell a colleague police officer that they do not have grounds for detaining a particular person in the cell and that that person must be released. Sometimes that colleague police officer may not be a rookie constable who has come in with someone whom they have arrested on flimsy grounds, but a detective chief  inspector who is very keen for that person to be arrested, although there are no legal grounds for that to happen. 
It is therefore desperately important that the person that makes that decision has not only the knowledge base and experience to enable them to make an appropriate decision, but the authority to stand up for the decision that he or she has taken. That is why it is important that we have a clear idea of the sort of person who can perform the duties of a custody sergeant. Let us recall that that matter was expressly examined by the Runciman royal commission on criminal justice in 1993. I have with me an article by Professor Michael Zander, QC, who was a member of that commission. He quotes what the commission said in paragraphs 25 to 26 of its inquiry report: 
 ''It is in any case important that the police should take full responsibility for the integrity of the evidence gathered, during the interview process as in other ways. This will only happen if they remain accountable for ensuring that such evidence is reliable because everything possible has been done to prevent the suspect from coming under unfair pressure. To make another body responsible for the custody officer role would mean a serious risk that the police would no longer regard the responsibility for ensuring fair treatment of suspects as being theirs. In our view, therefore, everything possible should be done to develop and strengthen the performance by the police of the custody officer role. We recommend accordingly that the custody officer should continue to be a police officer of at least the rank of sergeant.''

Dominic Grieve: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says. He might also agree—I think that we discussed this matter when considering the Criminal Justice Bill—that the custody sergeant has an important role to play in taking exhibit evidence and ensuring that it is properly labelled, identified, listed and retained.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman is correct. I have mentioned that issue in passing as part of the role of the custody sergeant.
I would need a high level of persuasion from the Minister to believe that someone without police experience would be able to exercise that authority and make such assessments. I am not saying that that is impossible; clearly, that is not the case, because somebody may have been trained and have achieved the same level of seniority. However, it is difficult to believe that a person could make the judgment without the genuine experience of having worked as a constable or sergeant in the police force. More important, it is even more difficult to believe that other police officers would think that a civilian taking on that role had the necessary authority and experience. That is a crucial element of the equation.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: It seems to me that two aspects need to be considered. If civilian employees with less training are asked to do the job of those who have received considerable training, there are two possibilities. First, people might be held in custody longer than they should be. Secondly, and perhaps more seriously, people might be acquitted because incorrect procedures were applied during custody. After all, the notes, evidence and procedures involved in incarceration and custody are important evidence at trial. If that procedure is wrong, criminals may get off who should not otherwise do so.

David Heath: That certainly has to be taken into account. However, one can overstate that part of the argument. For instance, it may be the Government's intention to employ eminent QCs in criminal practice as custody officers, as they would have a clear idea of what was required in evidential terms, but I doubt it. I suspect that that is not the Government's intention, but I am not sure what their intentions are. Do they wish to meet a demand for custody officers that would otherwise not be met? Or do they wish to make custody officers cheaper by saying that they no longer need to be police officers, at least not in the rank of sergeant? If that is the intention, it is not a particularly noble one, although it is perhaps understandable that the Government may want to spread resources more thinly and more widely. Either way, we cannot avoid the fact that it is difficult to envisage someone without appropriate training or experience working in that role—a role that is crucial to the operation of PACE.
The amendment is modest. It would provide for civilians employed in that capacity to have been police officers of at least the rank of sergeant. Some might say that that would reduce the Government's position to the absurd, and I happily accept that the pool of qualified people who might be relied upon to perform the role, were the amendment to be accepted, would be extremely limited, and that it would not make a great difference. However, it would have the great merit that those working in the custody suite would know what they were doing. 
Why do the Government think that the clause as it stands is a good idea? Extending civilianisation for the sake of it is not a good enough argument. There are strong grounds for having civilian elements in the police services and for relieving custody sergeants of some of their more routine tasks through the addition of civilian support, but theirs is a specific role, laid down in statute, and it has a high level of responsibility. Custody sergeants have performed their role in an exemplary way since the post was created. All the evidence is that they have done an extremely good job, and they are rarely challenged in the courts about the execution of their duties. 
The onus is on the Minister. First, she should explain why the measure is felt necessary beyond the fact that it is possible. Secondly, how does she believe that the real concerns of those who look at the system from the outside and believe that essential and intrinsic safeguards need to be maintained will be met? Thirdly, how does she believe that a custody sergeant with no experience in the police force will have the confidence of colleagues who have to have a working relationship with that person in the custody suite? I think that it would be almost impossible for a civilian to establish that confidence. If the Minister can satisfy me on all those grounds, I might be persuaded that it is a sensible way forward. However, I think that she will have some difficulty.

Andrew Mitchell: On this amendment and clause, no matter how beguiling the Minister is, we will have to differ. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome has  done the Committee and the House a service in tabling his amendment. I hope it may be agreeable if I make what might be called a clause stand part contribution to the debate in the interests of the efficient use of our time.
My suspicions about the Government's approach to the matter were first raised during the wind-up speech by the Under-Secretary on Second Reading. The hon. Lady said: 
 ''Questions were raised about custody officers and I have to say that the Northumbria pilot scheme found that custody sergeants were champing at the bit to get out of the stations and be with the public. It has been greatly welcomed, and I see no reason why properly trained police staff cannot undertake the role to the same standard as police officers—a view shared by ACPO.''—[Official Report, 7 December 2004; Vol. 428, c. 1135.] 
Leaving aside the last point, it seems that that was an extremely misleading comment, which displayed a lacuna in the Under-Secretary's understanding of the role and the experiment. The Northumbrian experiment is not about releasing custody sergeants to front-line policing. When I looked into that, I was advised that the experiment seeks to replace police officers who assist the custody sergeant in a number of roles—custody assistants, in other words—with civilian staff. The role of custody officer in Northumbria, as in the rest of the country, remains that dictated by PACE: the custody officer can only be a substantive police sergeant. 
It is not particularly surprising that we should approach the whole episode and issue with a degree of caution, a point made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome. The Conservative party agrees in principle that some police roles can and should be civilianised. In a range of areas, police officers can and do work extremely well with civilian staff. It might well be said that the control room is a good example of what one might call the mixed economy, where civilian staff work alongside police officers. 
Jailers in custody suites, those who take statements for minor offences, those in control of dogs, parking enforcers, scene of crime investigators, those who deal with forensics, vehicle examiners and accident investigators are examples of roles for which it may not be necessary to hold the office of constable. However, we absolutely disagree with the Government's proposals to civilianise the role of custody sergeant. That is a step too far. It is the exception that proves the rule in the process of civilianisation, which in other respects we support, and which, indeed, we started to intensify under the last Conservative Government. 
Custody is a core policing function. Before taking responsibility for a custody suite, sergeants accumulate several years experience of the custody environment, at the very least. That knowledge is invaluable in such a challenging and demand-led environment. One can give training to a civilian member of staff, but one cannot, by dint of a training course, give people the years of experience gained. Custody officers determine whether arrested persons should be detained or are free to go. They make quasi-judicial decisions as to whether or not arrests are  lawful. Only police officers have the authority and accountability to perform such a role, and only those working in custody suites have the expert experience. 
We agree with the Government's statement in the consultation paper that the custody officer has ''a crucial role''. That role is crucial to the well-being and safety of those in custody, as well as being the guarantor of their rights. It is crucial in ensuring that the investigation of those in custody does not overstep the boundaries laid down by Parliament, the preservation of which is the custody officer's specified statutory duty and responsibility. Among others, I am advised that Liberty, the Bar Council, the Law Society and Justice have serious concerns in this regard. Each organisation draws attention to the fact that custody officers are experienced individuals who safeguard the civil rights and well-being of those in custody. Liberty states: 
 ''The custody officer is the custodian of PACE. They are responsible for the well-being of those under arrest, and must ensure adherence to PACE requirements. The function is invariably carried out by an experienced police sergeant . . . It is easy to imagine a situation where a civilian officer could be placed under pressure to overlook breaches of PACE by senior CID officers.'' 
The present system ensures that custody sergeants are sufficiently experienced, and of sufficient seniority to be able to command respect for their decisions. The Home Office consultation paper ''Policing: Modernising Police Power to Meet Community Needs'' describes the role of custody officer as 
''largely administrative and process driven''. 
That Home Office view is not accepted by the Police Federation or the Bar Council, and it seems to me somewhat simplistic. Custody officers will work independently from investigating officers. They will make important decisions under pressure—for example, when to call in the force medical examiner, whether a suspect should hospitalised, or whether to put a suspect on suicide watch. Decisions will also be made that affect the course of the investigation—for example, whether a suspect should be interviewed, held, charged or released on bail. A custody officer needs the personal authority to overrule an investigating officer and the experience to make accurate decisions quickly. The Government's argument that the role is largely administrative does little justice, therefore, to the scope and importance of the custody officer's role. There is no substitute for experience to give authority to those people who make important judgments and decisions in these circumstances. 
What is really happening is that the Government are looking at ways to save money. On Second Reading, the Minister's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), who has held the role of Minister for Police, commented: 
 ''While we shall make many economic gains by using civilian staff in a general role in custody suites, is my right hon. Friend absolutely certain that now is the time to extend that role to cover the duties of the custody sergeant?''—[Official Report, December 7 2004; Vol. 428, c.1052.]
That is a very important question. The custody officer is vital in the judicial process and works to ensure that the law is exercised with care and respect for the rights of a suspect at all times. That is a core police responsibility, and the Government should think again about this measure.

Dominic Grieve: I do not want simply to repeat what has been said, but I speak, if only to give my own angle on this, because for some six years before I was elected to Parliament—from 1990 to 1996—I was a lay visitor to police stations in Hammersmith and Fulham. In that capacity, I made regular visits to the local stations, of which there were three within the borough, to visit the custody area and see those who had been arrested and detained. I have absolutely no doubt about the crucial nature of the custody sergeant's role. Various points have been made to the effect that it is a demanding job in terms of understanding the rules and priorities, and the need to take personal responsibility for those detained. On top of that, however, it is a job that demands status, which does not necessarily come from being a senior officer in the hierarchy of the police force.
My police station visits never left me in any doubt that the custody sergeant was the man in control of the custody area. It was a control that he exercised not only towards the police constables bringing in detainees whom they had arrested—both in terms of vetting that detention to ensure it was justified and in ensuring that proper procedures were observed—but towards more senior police officers. That was authority that a proper custody sergeant could exercise towards those responsible for carrying out investigation into the person under arrest. One would see senior officers in charge of such investigations deferring to the custody sergeant in relation to any matter concerning the welfare of the detained person. 
I simply do not see how that status, acquired as one of the great fruits of the 1980s and expanded over the years, will be preserved if we move to civilianise those in charge of the custody area. I am sympathetic to there being many functions in respect to the care of those detained at police stations that can properly be given to civilians to carry out. Heaven knows, the old matron who used to be in charge of female detainees in the past was not a police officer. But the task of being in overall control should remain with a police officer of sufficient standing and, above all, status within the hierarchy to discharge properly the quite onerous responsibilities placed on him. 
The fact is that the system has worked extremely well. The Minister may correct me, but I am aware of very few complaints nowadays about the manner of detaining individuals in police stations or the way in which they are investigated once at police stations. That is in large measure because of the custody sergeant's presence and to his having an established role within the police. 
I am wholly unconvinced by the proposals. I will listen carefully to what the Minister has to say, but my own view is to vote against the clause. If we do not succeed, I shall return to the matter on Report, and I understand that the other place will be exercised about  the point when the Bill eventually reaches it. Whichever way one looks at it, I hope the Government will think again, for sympathetic as I am to the idea of using civilian staff in the custody area to free other officers, the custody sergeant should stay.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am not surprised that such august bodies as Liberty, the Law Society and the Bar Council have concerns about this matter. My hon. Friends, and indeed the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, were absolutely right to express reservations. I begin to feel that the Bill is, in parts, trying to give us policing and criminal justice on the cheap. I am concerned about that, because something serious will go wrong and everyone will turn round and say, ''Ah yes, but these civilian custody officers''—or whatever they will be called—''only received minimal training.'' At the very least, we need to know from the Minister how much training officers are expected to get before they will be put in charge. Like the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, I would have no problem with a high-powered criminal barrister—or, indeed, a well qualified solicitor— fulfilling these roles. However, I would have a problem with someone relatively intelligent but who had had very little training.
Section 38 (8) of the Police Reform Act 2002, which we are amending much of in this Bill, gives an idea of the circumstances that custody sergeants may face. They could be faced with people who are in an emotional state, or who may be drunk or high on drugs. Sometimes, custody sergeants face very difficult situations. Subsection (8) gives a clue to that, because it states: 
 ''Where any power exercisable by any person in reliance on his designation under this section is a power which, in the case of its exercise by a constable, includes or is supplemented by a power to use reasonable force, any person exercising that power in reliance on that designation shall have the same entitlement as a constable to use reasonable force.'' 
We are starting to talk about having to use reasonable force. For example, if there is a fight or if somebody is about to injure themselves because they are high on drugs, swift intervention is needed. It will take only one case in which somebody is seriously injured or, God forbid, kills themselves or is killed by somebody else, and there will be a huge clamour to go back to having custody sergeants and for people to be properly trained to do the job. 
I reiterate the point made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome about the need for more custody suites. In the Cotswolds, only one squad car is available at night for 300 sq miles—half the Metropolitan police area. God knows how many police officers are in the Metropolitan police area, but it runs into many thousands each night of the week. The other day, when somebody was found dead on the road, the one squad car was taking somebody to a custody suite in Stroud, 30 miles away. It took the officers 20 minutes to get back and sort out the dead body on the road. That is what is happening in our rural areas because of the scarcity of police officers. 
I have serious reservations, and the Government should think very carefully before they introduce the provision in the Bill. I hope that they will drop the proposal, because the citizens of this country do not want their criminal justice and policing to be done on the cheap. They want it done by proper police officers with, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield rightly said, the appropriate experience and training, who know what to do when difficult cases arise. I am not trying to get at the Minister, but I urge her to give a second thought to the matter, and I hope that my hon. Friends will vote against the clause.

Jonathan Djanogly: The interesting thing about the clause is that almost everyone disagrees with the Government's position. The Law Society has said:
 ''Decisions on suspects' civil rights made by custody officers are too important to be carried out by a civilian.'' 
Liberty and the Police Federation are equally opposed, and one wonders why the Government are ignoring the consensus. 
Would a civilian custody officer have the authority and experience to cope with a scenario such as a detective superintendent seeking inappropriate access to an arrested person? I give that example because a retired senior police officer told me that the police often wanted to question suspects held in custody in a way that was incompatible with PACE—sometimes only slightly incompatible—but the sergeant, as custody officer running the police station, would put a stop to it because they had the authority to do so. They occupied the police station in the same way as they now say that one needs tanks to occupy towns after one has taken them. The retired officer said that they were a solid force, equivalent to the old matrons in the NHS who knew intimately what was going on around them and took responsibility for their surroundings. The Government are being unwise to get rid of this important role, and police stations and individuals detained in them could be worse for it.

Vera Baird: I, too, am concerned about the proposal, on the basis of my court experience over the years, and for the same reasons as Conservative Members. We should make some strong points, however.
The proposal has nothing to do with expense. Because we have rightly and properly recruited large numbers of police out on the streets, there is an urgent need for supervisory officers out on the streets to supervise them. I can see the need for that. 
The burden of deciding on charging, and so on, has been hugely relieved by the fact that the CPS is now in police stations. That has taken the top slice of  responsibility off custody officers. I can see why there appears to be an opportunity here, but my concerns are best summarised in the following way: it would be difficult to train into someone the experience needed to be able to decide whether to accept a charge; whether someone has used their reasonable suspicion appropriately; whether they have arrested someone properly and told them why they are being arrested; whether the case will survive; to decide, right at the beginning of the case, whether someone is entitled to an appropriate adult when interviewed; to provide protection against senior detectives who may feel that they urgently need access to someone when the duty of the custody officer is only to allow regular and noted access; and for decisions about bail, visiting and access to legal advice to be taken. It would be hard to train someone to take decisions of that kind. They are, it seems to me, decisions best taken on the back of having some experience of policing. I do not see it in quite the same way as the other civilianisation programmes related to the police.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. and learned Lady is doing the Committee a service from her experience, reiterating the PACE requirements. Would she not agree that if it is clear to a Crown Prosecution Service officer when he or she receives a file that there is a defect in the way the PACE requirements were carried out while someone was in custody, they will have to recommend that the case does not proceed? One requirement for the CPS is the likelihood of a prosecution being successful. Clearly, if procedures are not being followed correctly, that cannot be the case, and we will reach a situation where, if mistakes are made—they are likely to be made, with less experienced and less well trained people doing the job—guilty people will escape conviction.

Vera Baird: I do not know whether the CPS would take decisions such as that at an early stage. It may be that cases would fail later on, because serious challenges were made to the procedures. There are twin dangers of having someone who is insufficiently trained in the role: first, the civil liberties of the person in detention will not be protected, and secondly, the evidence will be contaminated because procedures have not been carried out. Both are equally damaging. I am worried that it is not possible to train someone up to do this job, unless they have the experience of being a police officer in the first place. It is probably a jump too far.

James Clappison: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. and learned Lady on this occasion. All the points she made were important, but the final one will take some answering from the Minister. Whatever training civilian custody officers receive, they will not have the practical experience that a police officer can bring to the role, particularly a police officer of status.
I share the concerns expressed across the Committee. I have some sympathy with the Government's objectives of trying to make the best possible use of the police and bring in civilianisation  wherever proper and appropriate, but the Minister has some important questions to answer as to whether or not the clause is the right way to do so. 
I hark back to PACE itself. Much what we are doing challenges the structure of that Act, not least with regard to custody officers. Great attention is paid in that Act to their role, such as who will be a custody officer and what happens if one is not available. Custody officers are given important decisions to take, many of which they still take, not least decisions about bail, which the hon. and learned Lady just mentioned. That is extremely important from the point of view of civil liberties. Decisions on bail have to be taken properly and the rights of an individual being brought to a police station must be properly protected. Those are important issues, and the Minister has to answer this debate with some care.

Hazel Blears: That is precisely what I intend to do in answering a good debate on a significant and important matter. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome for saying that his mind remained open a chink and that if I addressed some of the issues relating to independence, integrity, training, supervision and experience, he might just support us. I will do my utmost to widen that chink so that he will feel a little more comfortable. Unfortunately the mind of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield appears to be made up. Whatever I might be able to say to him today, he seems fairly implacably opposed to the provisions.

Dominic Grieve: Pretty implacably.

Hazel Blears: Not entirely implacably, so perhaps there is a chink of light there too.

David Heath: My placability is limited.

Hazel Blears: We are going to get into relative implacability shortly, which would be a fantastic debate.
Obviously, I understand the concerns expressed by the hon. Members for Sutton Coldfield, for Cotswold and for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) and by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar. I feel very strongly about this provision, partly because it is a difficult one. It is easy to promote the things in the Bill that are straightforward and gain a degree of consensus. This is one of the provisions on which people genuinely have some pretty trenchant views and opinions. Hon. Members have cited the Law Society, Liberty and other organisations. Equally I can say that in response to the consultation we received support from ACPO, Unison and, perhaps not unexpectedly, a whole range of police forces. They thought that the provisions could be implemented. I would not pretend that the weight is entirely balanced. Clearly there is a range of views about the provisions. 
I feel strongly about the provision because it is symptomatic of the fundamental change that we are seeking in our police service. Several hon. Members have helpfully said that they support the move towards increased civilianisation and that there should be a move to modernise the work force, to flexibility and to  people taking on roles that they have perhaps never taken on before. We are increasingly seeing escort officers, custody officers, detention officers and investigating officers, which we would not have seen four or five years ago in the police service. All those roles would have been carried out by fully warranted police officers in the service. 
In the past few years, we have made an incremental shift towards convincing people that it is possible for people other than fully attested warranted officers to carry out some of the functions that are important in our police service. That is the important point for me. We have to examine the function and see what we can put in place to ensure that it is properly carried out. That is why I was grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar for amplifying the responsibilities of the custody officer under PACE. 
I asked for some fairly extensive details about that. The role of the custody officer is perhaps on a different level from some of the other roles that we have civilianised. Many of the things that the custody officer has to determine are matters of judgment. They relate to charging, establishing whether people are fit to be detained, access to legal advice, access to medical attention and looking at whether detention should be extended. These are important matters requiring experience and judgment.

Andrew Mitchell: That is what we said.

Hazel Blears: Indeed, and I seek to explore the areas of agreement before I delineate the areas in which we can take those steps. Let me assure the Committee that I do not consider that the role of custody officer covers simply administration and process. It involves significant matters of judgment and serious decisions. It is not our intention to dilute either that key role or the ability of the custody officer to act independently of the investigative process.
Several hon. Members have talked about the need for the custody officer—the custody sergeant as it is now—to be independent, to have status and to be able to question the decisions of officers who turn up with people whom they have arrested, whether or not the charge is correct. That is right; the authority comes from legislation—the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which provides that the custody officer has the right to question such decisions and to have that independence, integrity and status. It also provides that, if the custody sergeant's decision is questioned, he or she can immediately refer the matter to a superintendent. The power will remain exactly the same for civilian custody staff officers. Under the terms of the legislation, if their decisions are questioned or there is any question of their integrity or independence being compromised, they will be able to refer to a superintendent. That is an important consideration. 
It has been argued that the Government are pursuing the role as a way of providing policing on the cheap—I think that that was the phrase that the hon. Member for Cotswold used. Let me dispel that impression at the outset. This is not about policing on the cheap; it is about identifying the functions that  need to be carried out and the most appropriate people to do that, and about giving chief officers the flexibility to deploy their resources in the most effective and efficient way. I make no apology for that. We spend a lot of money—more than £10 billion—on the police force, and I am determined to get best value out of that investment. That means giving chief officers the ability to say, ''These are our resources, and these are the tasks that face us. How do we put the right people with the right skills in the right place at the right time?'' 
There are parallels to be drawn with some of the work force modernisation that has occurred in the health service, through which we have sought to change people's roles and jobs. Now people in the health service are doing things that they would never have dreamed of doing five years ago, never mind 10 years ago. Similarly, across the public services, as part of our reform programme, we are trying to create flexibility in the work force, and I hope that hon. Member for Cotswold would support that as a way of getting maximum value out of the investment that we make. 
That is a very important role for the police service. Tackling change is important. It is always comfortable and attractive to cleave to the things that we know, to carry on doing them in a traditional way because it has worked well and to feel that we cannot make any improvements. I understand that position. However, sometimes it is necessary to think ahead, to be more innovative and to find new ways of doing things that benefit the service as a whole.

Andrew Mitchell: I am sorry to inject a harsh note, but the Minister is patronising the Committee and, indeed, the many bodies outside this House that understand that it is comfortable not to have change, but think that this particular change is wrong. That is the burden on the Opposition Benches. We are not frightened of change—we want to see a lot of change in the police service—but this is a mistake. The judgment is wrong, and the Government should think again.

Hazel Blears: I do not accept that. I do not think that the judgment is wrong, and it is important to set the changes in a wider context as well as dealing with the specific issues that have been raised, as I shall now do. I do not intend for a moment to patronise either the outside bodies or the Committee, as I think that the issues are important.
Training is a key issue. People need to be reassured that those who will undertake the role will be properly trained and will have the right skills to do the job. National occupational standards are being developed by Skills for Justice. They will form the basis of an integrated competency framework. I know that that is a bit of jargon, but it is an established way of making sure that we can tell which skills are required for the job and how they relate to the tasks that have to be performed. Centrex, the national centre for policing excellence, which developed a doctrine of good practice, is currently developing guidance that will set out how the national occupational standards are to be achieved. It will establish standards not only for the  new civilian custody officers, but for existing police custody officers. That will enhance the training that is available to them. 
I can understand hon. Members' concerns, which is one of the reasons why, if we proceed down the proposed route, I believe that it is important to undertake a number of pilots to see how the staff custody officer role might work. I am keen for the training to relate not just to theory but to practice. I take on board the points that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar made about experience and knowledge, understanding how such decisions arise and the ability to react to them. I envisage the pilots involving not only theoretical training, but the shadowing of experienced officers, learning about judgment and getting a feel for the job. 
There is no shortage of volunteers for the pilot projects. Police forces are incredibly keen to take advantage of the opportunity to release some of their custody sergeants from the roles that they now fill.

Andrew Mitchell: The Minister says that police forces are incredibly keen, but will she say who, where, why and what? My understanding is that the Police Federation, which represents enormous numbers of a policemen and women, is adamantly opposed.

Hazel Blears: In the consultation, the Wiltshire, Gloucestershire, Avon and Somerset, Hertfordshire and Hampshire constabularies and North Yorkshire police and Surrey police were all keen to support the changes. Surrey police is one of the forces undertaking a major work force modernisation pilot, redesigning its basic command unit and considering different people doing different jobs in different places with different skills.

Andrew Mitchell: The Minister listed less than 20 per cent. of the police forces in the country; she got seven out of 42, which might be a significant figure. It is important for the Committee to know whether she was referring to the senior management of those police forces in close liaison with the Home Office or whether the main bodies of those forces were consulted. They will have to implement the decision if Parliament gives her the powers that she seeks.

Hazel Blears: I understand that the hon. Gentleman will seek to press the matter. I am also aware of the Police Federation's representations to many Members of Parliament communicating its concerns, which are serious. I hope that the Police Federation will take my comments as a general reassurance that I recognise the importance of the role in question, and the need for independence, integrity and status. The job does not simply involve process. Officers need to be properly trained. Part of that training will involve on-the-job experience and learning from experienced officers. I hope that that will reassure the Police Federation, which has genuine concerns about this matter.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I think that the Minister is genuinely trying to address the Committee's concerns. Will she expand her comments on the training? How  long do the qualifications take to obtain and for how long does she envisage that the shadowing role will take place? However much training somebody receives, it is not until they have experienced a difficult situation in the cells that they can prove whether they are up to the job.

Hazel Blears: I understand the point entirely. The amount of training to be given for roles in the police service is a matter for chief constables because it is an operational matter. The purpose of developing the national occupational standards, the framework and the pilots is to explore the issues that have been highlighted. Until we are absolutely reassured that the job can be done properly and in accordance with the legislation, I do not want to take the necessary step. The hon. Gentleman himself said that if the duties are not carried out properly, there will be a defective case file and an ineffective trial. That is not something that the Government want ever to happen. The length of time involved would be an operational matter for the chief constable. The role in question is a serious one that requires proper training and we do not want policing on the cheap. I am not sure what the pay rates will be, but I would imagine that the job will be complex and not likely to be done for a small amount of money.
I can inform hon. Members that 10 forces have volunteered for the pilot study and that two others are in discussions, so a fair range of forces would like to take part.

Vera Baird: Is my hon. Friend saying that, because of the law in PACE, none of the pilots could be undertaken without changing the law? That seems a realistic approach, in fact.

Hazel Blears: Yes, indeed. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield mentioned the remarks that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary made in winding up the Second Reading debate about the Northumbria police work force modernisation pilot. That is an extensive pilot, involving £4.5 million over the next four years. The hon. Gentleman is right; that is a matter of extending the roles of other custody officers within the custody setting. It does not get to the heart of the custody sergeant's role, because until we change the law that must still be carried out by a police officer.
The Northumbria pilot has covered everything but the bit that can no longer be done. That has released 91 full-time equivalent police officers to the front line, getting them out of the custody setting. That has been welcomed by not just the officers, but the people of Northumbria, who have more officers on patrol.

Andrew Mitchell: I am grateful to the Minister for correcting the record, because I am sure that if she looks carefully at what I said and what Hansard records, she will see that a misleading impression was given to the House of what was happening. I am glad that she has now taken the opportunity to correct that.

Hazel Blears: I do not think that that needs a response.
There has been a massive increase in the number of police officers. I think that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar made that point. It is the biggest ever increase; there have been an extra 12,000 officers in recent years, and because of that, there have been strains and stresses connected with the need for front-line supervision. The service needs to get some sergeants out into the community, supervising the neighbourhood teams, which are an increasing part of the way in which we organise our police service. 
Many sergeants whom I have met have told me that one of the least attractive roles is that of custody officer, because it means being stuck inside and not doing the work in which people want to be involved. Getting those officers out is not simply expedience; it is a matter of playing to their strengths. Many of those sergeants do not want to be in the custody office day in, day out. They joined the police to be out on the beat fighting crime and bringing criminals to justice. That is another reason for the process that we have begun. 
I hope that with my undertakings to pilot the system, conduct proper training and invest properly, and my recognition of the difficult judgments that people in the role need to make, hon. Members will have a little courage and take a view that accepts that things can be different. We do not have to do things as we have always done them. We can make improvements by doing things differently. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield; as an independent lay custody visitor—a hugely important role carried out by members of the public—he will have seen some of the difficult decisions that are made. 
One of the most important things that we can do to free up our front-line police officers is to redesign the custody process. We have said that, on average, police officers spend about 64 per cent. of their time on front-line duties. In the next three years we want to drive that figure up to something like 73 or 74 per cent. That would release the equivalent of 12,000 extra police officers to look after communities. That is why measures such as the one that I am outlining are important to us. Officers say that one of the most frustrating things to them is the time that they spend in custody. They arrest someone and take them to the custody centre, where it takes for ever to get through. Redesigning the custody process is very important. 
I have one final comment to make. I am surprised when Opposition Members ask me who is in favour of the change and say that every sane person is against it. I have looked at the report of the Second Reading debate, in which the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) said: 
 ''The Bill outlines plans for civilian staff to be designated as staff custody officers for the purposes of PACE. Subject to the obvious practical concerns about training and supervision, some of which the Home Secretary dealt with in his speech, I support the proposal. We need more police on the streets and less paperwork, and I believe that it will help to achieve that.''—[Official Report, 7 December 2004; Vol. 428, c. 1065.]
I could not have put it better myself. In addition to the Association of Chief Police Officers, Unison and a range of police services, the shadow Home Secretary supports the proposal. I am amazed at the implacable opposition from Conservative Members in the Committee today. I know that they have difficulties with the Identity Cards Bill—they cannot decide whether they are in favour of it or against it—but I thought that we were fairly sure about where the Opposition stood on the Bill that we are considering. I should welcome some clarification. Perhaps hon. Members would like to consult the shadow Home Secretary on the matter.

Andrew Mitchell: The Minister is sullying her otherwise excellent reputation for taking Opposition points about the Bill seriously. My right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary is right to say that it is a top priority for the Conservative party to stop the way in which the police are drowning in paperwork as a result of the micro-managing efforts of the Home Office and the Minister in directing what happens at a local level. He made the point that we are determined to achieve that.
Having examined this issue carefully and talked to the people who deal with the role of custody sergeant, however, we have decided that this provision is a mistake. We are in favour of civilianisation, but this provision, as I said earlier, is a civilianisation too far. That is why we are opposed to it.

Hazel Blears: I am grateful for that semi-clarification. I would have thought that the words of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden were fairly clear.

Andrew Mitchell: My right hon. Friend said ''Subject to.''

Hazel Blears: Indeed. He said:
 ''Subject to the obvious practical concerns about training and supervision''. —[Official Report, 7 December 2004; Vol. 428, c. 1065.] 
That seemed fairly clear to me. I do not want to trespass on private matters—[Interruption.] I am sure that Opposition Members can resolve that matter for themselves. 
The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome would restrict custody sergeants to being retired or former police sergeants. That would be a very limited pool to draw from, and it would make things difficult. The key issue is not what a person is or was, but whether that person is suitable, competent, properly trained and experienced to carry out that role. Some police sergeants might not have had the necessary training in the specific role of being a custody officer. His amendment would therefore not necessarily serve the purpose for which he tabled it. The decision on custody officers needs to be an operational one to make our police services more efficient and effective; his amendment would not help to take that issue forward, and I ask members of the Committee to resist it.

Vera Baird: I raised this matter on Second Reading; indeed, I seem to remember being the only Member who did so. I am therefore quite surprised at the overwhelming opposition that has suddenly come from the Opposition Benches today.
Would my hon. Friend the Minister say that since the change in clause 112 provides that no one can be appointed a custody officer unless they are either a staff custody officer or a sergeant, we can afford to change the law to permit the pilots? If the pilots turn out badly, as would happen if cases had to be abandoned or a great many detainees complained that they had not been supervised properly, one could fall back on the fact that even in the new law the role of custody sergeant is retained. If, after the pilots, staff officers prove not to be viable, no harm has been done, because one can fall back on custody officers. Is that right?

Hazel Blears: We want to encourage the implementation of the provision because it has a whole range of advantages for the effectiveness of the police service. Clearly, it allows for either a police officer or a staff custody officer, so a police officer could continue in the role if necessary.

David Heath: I am grateful to the Minister for her comprehensive reply. I understand her intentions and the fact that she believes that the change should not occasion the alarm that it causes to some. However, she has not yet persuaded me, and I shall amplify a little the reasons why.
The Minister mentioned some of the members of ACPO and some of the forces that have expressed an interest. She will readily acknowledge, however, that other chief constables have said ''Over my dead body will I have this happening in my force at this time,'' because they do not believe that it is the right way forward. Those chief constables are not necessarily against the principle of civilianisation. I place on record again the fact that I am not against a critical examination of the roles of police officers or of a finding that a task could be performed by civilians in a way that released police officers to quintessential policing duties. That is not a problem. Indeed, when I was involved with a police authority, we took the lead in many such areas, including the civilianisation of the work of scenes of crime officers, who do not need to be serving police officers in order to perform their functions. In fact, the civilianised SOCOs were largely retired police officers with the training, confidence and experience to do the job. That brings me back to the amendment. 
I want to say a few words in response to the debate. We underestimate and undervalue the rank of sergeant in the police force. One thing that we could do to greatly increase the effectiveness of the police is understand the role that sergeants can play and cherish it. Too often, it is seen as a rank that people pass through on the way to greater things, but I deplore that attitude, because officers who are prepared to work in that area and use their experience in the front line—an expression that is often used—are crucial to the success  of the police service. The role is seen as crucial to other organisations, but it is particularly so to uniformed bodies. 
I part company with the Minister on one thing: I believe that the custody sergeant is, crucially, a front-line role. I did not have a problem with the Northumbria pilot scheme because it dealt with those in ancillary roles, and I have no difficulty today with her statement that she is going to roll out the Northumbria pilot across the country to see whether it is possible to take out some police officers working in subordinate roles to the custody sergeant, because those roles could be performed instead by civilians. 
I come back to the point that the custody sergeant's specific role, as set out in legislation, requires particular authority. The Minister said that that authority comes from legislation. I disagree entirely. It does not come from legislation; the powers—the duties and responsibilities—come from legislation, but the authority comes from having worked for 20 years in the roles of constable and sergeant and from the experience that comes from having worked in those roles. That is the authority that matters. 
I want the Minister to understand that I do not doubt her good intentions. I have said it before, but I share many of her aspirations for the police service, and I recognise many of the problems. The danger is, first, that the Government sometimes give the impression that they are not wedded to the office of constable and would be happy to see that role diminished in the policing family, at least for the attested constable or officer. Secondly, they are prepared to undermine the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which I believe has been remarkably successful and is a bulwark against which practice can be measured. Both impressions, if true, are unfortunate, and she should take great pains to resist them. 
I shall not press the amendment, although I still think that it has some merit. It would at least ensure that the right people are in the right job and that they have the authority to back it up. The Minister has yet to convince me of the merits of her case, and the debate will clearly continue. As we intend to vote against the clause, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Andrew Mitchell: I do not wish to prolong the debate, because there is a clear division across the Committee on the matter we are discussing. We, too, will vote against the clause.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome put his case extremely well. I emphasise that Conservative Members have no problem with the concept of civilianising where possible. It was given tremendous impetus under the last Conservative Government, as the Minister will be happy to make clear. However, in promoting the concept, it is important not to civilianise too far and to know when a post cannot be civilianised. As the hon. Gentleman said, in his  judgment, which we share, the post in question is not one that can be civilianised, because it is an important, front-line policing post that needs experience to fulfil it. We are not persuaded by the Minister's argument. 
The hon. Gentleman made another valuable point: there is too much dismissal of police experience. We spent our first sitting talking about the issue of police members of SOCA. The Government play fast and loose with the experience that police have, which enables them to fulfil these tasks as we would wish them to do. The role of custody sergeant is an important part of the criminal justice system. The Minister has not won the argument in Committee, although she may win the vote, given the Government's majority. We wish to return to the matter on Report, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield said, I have no doubt that it will attract the interest of those in another place.

Vera Baird: Is the hon. Gentleman persuadable, given his commitment to civilianisation when that is possible? As I said very clearly, I have serious doubts about it. The form of the proposal is such that we cannot pilot it now because of PACE. If we change the law, the office of custody officer remains; if the pilots are a disaster, no chief constable need have a civilian custody officer in charge. He can fall back on having a custody sergeant. Is it not therefore worth a try?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. and learned Lady is very persuasive. She gave the Minister a lifeline on that point when she intervened a moment ago. My problem with that argument is that I looked into the comment made by the Under-Secretary on Second Reading, and it was exceedingly misleading. I went on a similar journey to that of the shadow Home Secretary. We started off thinking that there was a case for what is proposed, but as we talked to people who have to operate the system on both sides—those who certainly know more than I do about these matters—we became convinced that it was an error.
The Minister has not won the argument in Committee, which is why, no matter what the vote determines, we will return to it later in the parliamentary process. 
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 6.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
Clause 111 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clause 112 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 113 - Powers of designated and accredited persons

Andrew Mitchell: I beg to move amendment No. 150, in clause 113, page 79, line 35, leave out subsection (3).

Marion Roe: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 151, in clause 113, page 80, line 10, leave out subsections (5) and (6).
Amendment No. 152, in schedule 8, page 169, line 8, leave out paragraphs 2 and 3. 
Government amendments Nos. 264 to 266. 
Amendment No. 293, in schedule 8, page 169, line 28, leave out 
', for a period not exceeding thirty minutes, or' 
and insert 
'until'. 
Amendment No. 292, in schedule 8, page 169, line 28, leave out 'thirty' and insert 'fifteen'.' 
Government amendment No. 267. 
Government amendment No. 268. 
Government amendment No. 58. 
Amendment No. 153, in schedule 8, page 171, line 14, leave out paragraph 5. 
Amendment No. 157, in schedule 8, page 172, line 24, at end insert— 
 '(3) A person shall not exercise any power under this paragraph except in the company, and under the supervision, of a constable.'. 
Amendment No. 154, in schedule 8, page 172, line 25, leave out paragraphs 8 to 11. 
Amendment No. 290, in schedule 8, page 173, line 29, at end insert— 
'Commencement 
 12A Paragraphs 2 to 12 shall not come into effect until the Secretary of State has published an assessment of the cost and effectiveness of the existing system of community support officers.'. 
Amendment No. 155, in schedule 8, page 173, line 34, leave out paragraph 14. 
Amendment No. 156, in schedule 8, page 175, line 1, leave out paragraph 17. 
Government amendment No. 59. 
Government amendment No. 60. 
Amendment No. 291, in schedule 9, page 178, line 24, at end add— 
'Commencement 
 11 Paragraphs 2 to 10 shall not come into effect until the Secretary of State has published an assessment of the cost and effectiveness of the existing system of community support officers.'. 
Amendment No. 294, in schedule 9, page 178, line 24, at end insert— 
'Commencement 
 11 Paragraphs 2 to 12 shall not come into effect until the Secretary of State has implemented a programme of national standards and training for community support officers covering the new responsibilities and duties inherent in this Act.'.
Mr. Mitchell: : We come to the debate on the police community support officers and the extension of their powers. I am most grateful to those who organise these things for agreeing that we might have one big debate on the matter. I can assure the Committee that this is the last substantive issue of concern to Her Majesty's Opposition for discussion today. 
It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I say a few words about our amendments before coming to the specific areas that we would like to discuss. The subsection mentioned in amendment No. 150 would allow the Secretary of State to add or remove a provision from the list of offences for which a community support officer may issue a fixed penalty notice for disorder. We seek to remove that aspect from the Bill. 
Amendment No. 151 would remove subsection (5), which would amend the powers of accredited persons with regard to fixed penalty notices for disorder. The paragraphs mentioned in amendment No. 152 would give PCSOs the right to investigate licensing offences, which we want to remove. 
The purpose of amendments Nos. 293 and 292 is to provide an opportunity to consider the limits to the PCSOs' powers and important practical considerations that follow. Amendment No. 153 would remove the paragraph that gives PCSOs the power to detain a beggar. Amendment No. 157 deals with a part of schedule 8 that gives the power to place traffic signs. A significant difference exists between the physical placement of signs and the decision on where to place them. Although placing a traffic sign may not appear a difficult job on the face of it, in reality it has wide implications for traffic management and road safety. We seek to probe that important and potentially significant issue. 
Amendment No. 154 deals with a PCSO's power to photograph an arrested person and with powers of entry, search and seizure for designated investigation officers, which we want to remove. Amendment No. 290 would provide that a full evaluation of CSOs' effectiveness and value for money should be conducted before any additional powers are given. I will come on to the limited evaluation that has been conducted, which the Minister has helpfully made available to us. 
Amendment No. 155 would remove the paragraph that gives PCSOs the power to require a name and address from a beggar. Amendment No. 156 would remove the power to photograph a person given a fixed penalty notice away from the police station. Amendments Nos. 150 to 153 and Nos. 154 to 156 deal with powers to control, direct and detain and whether those should be allocated only to fully accountable constables. Allocating yet more powers on a pick-and-mix basis raises the question of what the end game is. Are any policing powers sacrosanct, or in time will civilian personnel hold the whole panoply? 
Under amendment No. 291, we want a full evaluation of CSOs' effectiveness and value for money. Under amendment No. 294, we want to ensure that adequate training is provided to PCSOs before they receive their new powers. We want to probe the Minister on those issues. She may well be able to  satisfy us on some of them, but perhaps not on others; we shall see. I shall return at the end of my remarks to Government amendment No. 58, which is important. 
The Minister has teased me in numerous debates about where the Conservative party stands on CSOs, so let me reassure her at the outset of the debate that we are not opposed to them in principle. However, we do not think that they are proper policemen and women. They have a role in terms of their visibility, which is reassuring and helpful in looking after our neighbourhoods, and they certainly have a role in neighbourhood policing, but we are concerned that the Government are moving too quickly, without proper evaluation of how they should develop the role of PCSOs. 
Where PCSOs are the eyes and ears of the police, they do an excellent job. Twenty-three are coming to my constituency and the surrounding area, and I look forward to seeing them have precisely the impact that I have described. Indeed, bicycling the other night to where I stay when I am in London, I came across a couple of PCSOs who were walking the area and I was able to inform them of some yobbish, loutish behaviour that had been going on near there. They were extremely helpful, saying that they would report it and would be back the following night, as I believe they were. So I am in no doubt that in the limited way that I have described, PCSOs can play a helpful role in neighbourhood policing. 
That said, several concerns are evident from our amendments. I shall raise first what I call function creep. When PCSOs were originally proposed, in the Police Reform Act 2002, they had a number of fairly limited roles to perform. Since their introduction, however, there has been a steady creep in the powers that they are allocated. The Bill is designed to extend their powers even further, without, as yet, any empirical evidence as to the effectiveness of the exercise of their existing powers. 
In clause 113 and schedules 8 and 9, there is an effort to enable a wide range of powers to be allocated to a wide range of individuals in a wide range of circumstances. We believe that the power to control, direct and detain should be allocated only to fully accountable police constables, for all the reasons that have emerged during our debates: political independence, impartiality, training and so on. It is not efficient or effective to allocate such powers on a pick-and-mix basis. The continual need to increase powers given to PCSOs and other accredited persons under such a piecemeal approach clearly shows that insufficient consideration has been given to the provision of and dynamics of police powers to control, direct and detain. The Bill therefore represents yet another example of creeping powers for PCSOs, despite the absolute lack of clarification of their role, skills and general effectiveness. 
A number of bodies, including Liberty and the Police Federation, expressed concerns that once PCSOs had been introduced, extensions of their powers would inevitably follow. Clause 113 makes it clear that those concerns were right. Under this clause, PCSOs will be able to exercise a variety of new powers,  including those of search, seizure, entry and detention. I understand that the Police Federation is extremely concerned about those proposals, as are we. It will have to work with them. Certain policing powers should remain the preserve of those who have full and appropriate training. 
I am sure that the Government will seek to advance the measures by giving examples of situations in which it would have been desirable for CSOs to have the powers, and we shall listen with interest if the Minister does so. However, we believe that that misses the point. CSOs should be used only in a supporting role. If there are examples of situations where the exercise of extra powers would have been of use, then this is an argument for a greater number of police officers, which is Conservative party policy, and not for an extension of the powers of CSOs. The Bar Council, in response to the Government's proposal to extend the powers, argued that on most occasions where an extension of powers is discussed, CSOs will be in front-line police work. The Police Federation have said that at a time when NCS and NCIS officers are facing a reduction in their powers to tackle serious and organised crime, bestowing CSOs with even more powers is a clear and unjustifiable contradiction. 
Secondly, the powers to detain and arrest included in the Bill will inevitably lead to confrontational situations where, without the necessary training, equipment or skills, PCSOs will be putting both themselves and the public at risk. Our amendments provide an opportunity to consider the limits to the PCSOs' powers, and the important practical considerations that would follow. It is precisely because of the inherent problems that citizens have never been encouraged to make arrests themselves. 
In paragraph 2 of Schedule 9, why has 30 minutes been chosen? Is that a reasonable response time for someone committing a section 3 or 4 offence in a busy urban area? What happens to the detained person when 30 or 15 minutes are up? Will there not be disputes in courts about the timing?. What is the Government's view about the difficulties inherent in that? Is it an arrest? Will the PCSO be subject to the codes of practice we discussed earlier, which govern the behaviour of policemen and women? What happens if the offender gets violent? What protection does the PCSO have against such violence? What training? What equipment? Do they have handcuffs or a truncheon? Is this not more properly police work? If the PCSOs have to be minded by policemen, is that not, of itself, a case for more police? 
Giving PCSOs the power to detain will remove them from the street and take them out of the public arena, in which they were created to operate, which is a breach of my first principle of what PCSOs should be used for. The Government's regulatory impact assessment for the Bill expressly states that they do not want to do that. This is another example, I submit, of muddled thinking from this Government. The regulatory impact assessment specifies a key benefit of increased powers for PCSOs: 
 ''Increase the capacity of PCSOs and accredited persons to deal with anti-social behaviour without eroding their high visibility role, thus helping to improve reassurances within communities.''
Giving the right to a PCSO to detain will surely remove them from the communities they are intended to serve. 
The power to search and seize is dangerous, and is surrounded by complex procedure. If the person to be searched is violent, as drug-traffickers or those carrying weapons often are, what protection does the PCSO have? Is it in his training or equipment? Will the PCSO be subject to the police codes of practice? If so, they must be selected for their ability to quickly translate the action into the law's requirements. That requires the ability and training that police men and women receive, not the shorter course for PCSOs. What provisions are being made by the Government to monitor that? If these tasks are to be done, there is no substitute for their being done properly, by properly trained and equipped police officers. Police work should be done only in that way. 
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) made an excellent point on Second Reading. He pointed out that under the last Conservative Government, of which he and I were members, the thrust of government policy was to civilianise, to free police to go on the streets. He teased the Minister with the fact that, under Labour, we are putting civilians on the streets, so that police can spend more time filling in forms and being in the police station. It a point that the Minister should bear in mind. 
There is no doubt that the exercise of the additional powers, including the powers to search and detain a person and deter begging, are likely to put PSCOs at greater personal risk. Consider what the Bar Council said regarding the power to deter begging: 
 ''We have serious reservations about the prospect of CSOs dealing with begging. Many people involved in begging have mental health difficulties and can be extremely difficult, volatile or even dangerous. On any view this is front line policing and ought to be the preserve of the police force.'' 
Lack of training for PSCOs is a great concern. Currently, the Metropolitan Police Service CSOs receive only three weeks' training. If those officers are to take on extra powers, they will require far more rigorous training to ensure that they discharge their responsibilities effectively and safely. The Government's comments on the issue of PCSO training do not measure up to what is required. The regulatory impact assessment states: 
 ''Forces will need to give some additional training to the PCSOs in order for them to exercise the (new) powers. These costs should be minimal and can be met from Police Authority budgets.'' 
The RIA also states: 
 ''The training for all the new powers would probably require about one day's extra training.'' 
Those statements confirm not only that the Government seek to do the training on the cheap, with no extra money being provided to train PCSOs effectively, but also that they do not grasp the amount of training required to ensure that PCSOs, and the public, remain safe. 
My fourth point is that there has been no independent and comprehensive evaluation of the current system of PCSOs. There is public and police concern about giving police powers to people who are  not policemen and policewomen. They are not selected, trained, supervised or equipped to the same standard, and the public may only find the extension of their powers to be acceptable if they can be shown to be efficient and cost-effective. They have a short history, which ought to be evaluated before additional powers are given to them. 
What is the cost to the Exchequer of CSOs compared with police officers? What training will they receive? Who will train them? If they are to be trained by the police, what is the cost of taking the trainers out of service or away from training police recruits? Who will supervise them? What will that cost? What protective equipment will they need? How much extra will that cost? What is the Minister's response to the chairman of Hampshire police authority, who said that PCSOs are not value for money? 
As the chairman of the Police Federation has said, 
 ''The role of the PCSOs must be fully clarified before a national rollout, and there must be national standards for their training which is commensurate with their responsibilities.'' 
Unless that happens, either police authorities will reject the use of PCSOs, and this part of the Bill will have been a complete waste of time, or the extension of powers to PCSOs will prove to be unpopular, misguided, expensive, dangerous and totally counter-productive. The Home Office interim report, the ''National Evaluation of Police Community Support Officers'', does not provide us with any confidence that the roll-out of powers has been based on any factual proof of effectiveness. The report states that there is only 
''limited evidence as to whether the presence of PCSOs has an impact on crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour''. 
It continues: 
 ''Few of the force evaluations (upon which this report is based) include a rigorous analysis of crime and incident data for areas before and after the introduction of CSOs. Where this is done, it is very difficult to attribute any changes to the presence of CSOs.'' 
The Government should not be increasing the number of PCSOs across the country or extending the powers available to them without the knowledge that they are indeed effective, providing value for money and reducing crime. We want to hear the Government's response to all of our points before we consider which amendments we should bring to the Committee by way of a vote. 
Government amendment No. 58 deals with search and seizure powers for alcohol and tobacco and powers to seize and detain controlled drugs. Will the Minister tell the Committee why the Government have introduced that important new clause now? Why was it not included in the published Bill? Why did we not have a chance to discuss it on Second Reading? There have been an extraordinarily large number of amendments tabled by the Government on the Bill, many of a technical or an uncontroversial nature. 
The Government wish to build on the powers of PCSOs and designated persons under the terms of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 regarding confiscation of alcohol, in addition to the powers under the Licensing Act 2003 that allow search and confiscation.  That is an expansion of the powers of the PCSO into a volatile area of policing. Alcohol consumed either in the street or on licensed premises by young or old often has the effects that we read about every day in the papers. Police officers, in dealing with such incidents, have physical protection, training, knowledge of law and experience. Giving the power to PCSOs removes them from a support role and places them in a front-line policing role. Will the PCSOs, in the Minister's opinion, have the experience and training to deal with what are often antagonistic crowd situations? 
The power to search is also clearly part of the provision. If a person fails to comply with the PCSO's request to surrender alcohol and the PCSO has reasonable belief that the person has alcohol or a container for alcohol in his or her possession, the PCSO may search him for it. A police officer in similar circumstances will not have the same power: a police officer will have to act in accordance with the guidelines under code A of the PACE codes of practice. In such circumstances, the officer will have to complete a stop and search form to remain compliant with the codes, which come into operation in April. Yet under the amendment, it seems that PCSOs will not have to be similarly accountable for their suspicion. That is giving PCSOs a power not enjoyed by sworn and accountable police officers. 
The most dangerous aspect of the new clause is that headed: 
 ''Powers to seize and detain: controlled drugs''. 
That presents a scenario in which the PCSO is not only dealing with a potentially violent drunkard but with an unpredictable, potentially psychotic person, who may be legitimately in possession of controlled drugs, or—more likely—in possession of them for dealing purposes or for his own use. An untrained, unequipped and inexperienced PCSO would thus be dealing with a situation with the potential for considerable violence, searching people who might be carrying some form of weaponry to protect either themselves or the drugs or cash that they were carrying. The situation might well turn violent if the suspect were threatened with arrest or the seizure of the substances that they carried. 
We of course must assume that the PCSO would in the first instance have the necessary knowledge of the range of controlled drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to form the suspicion necessary to call upon the designated powers. The PCSOs will require further training on how to search for substances while preserving their own health and safety in respect of the potential for needle-stick injuries and exposure to HIV and hepatitis. Furthermore, they will need the skills and techniques necessary to prevent the loss of evidence due to the disposal of substances through, for example, swallowing by the offender. Those are clearly front-line policing matters. 
My concerns are exacerbated by the fact that the new clauses have been tabled so late and may not receive the scrutiny that they deserve. I rest the Opposition case there, but I have bowled many questions at the Minister, and I hope that she will be able to satisfy us that in at least some instances the  powers will be given, through training and use, in a manner that will not place the public or PCSOs in harm's way.

David Heath: Without wishing to be in any way unkind, to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, this may be another matter in relation to which he is on a journey: the Conservative party's position on community support officers is changing incrementally as time goes by. As I have made plain on previous occasions, we have always felt that community support officers were a good idea. Some are now deployed in my constituency, and I am extremely pleased that they are there. I have been to see them and shaken them by the hand, and I am delighted to have them patrolling the streets of some small communities that would otherwise not see a police officer regularly, because of the paucity of officers in the rural county of Somerset.

Andrew Mitchell: Just to be clear, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I do not take his remarks as any unkindness; since the day I became the shadow police Minister I have made it clear that, in the narrow terms that I define, we welcome PCSOs. Our great concern is that the Government are moving too quickly and too fast, and giving them powers for which they are not trained. That has been the burden of my speech. They have a valuable role in policing, but it must not be overstated. That was my view on Second Reading, and I said so on the Floor of the House.

David Heath: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has been consistent in his personal position; I am not sure that that position has always been adopted by his colleagues in relation to previous legislation on this matter. However, he gave us an example of his work with community support officers—indeed, I am getting slightly worried about the Conservative Front Benchers, who seem to be acting as a sort of vigilante force. It is entirely commendable, but one wonders what risks they are running fighting crime in such a hands-on way.

Andrew Mitchell: I should like to make it absolutely clear to the Committee that there was no act of personal bravery on my part, as there was in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield. I merely reported matters to the PCSOs and disappeared behind my front door.

David Heath: I shall not tease the hon. Gentleman further.
Many of us support the concept of CSOs and see them as a potentially valuable part of the policing family, as I believe we are supposed to call the variety of officers now available. However, we also recognise—this relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield—that there is a huge danger of expecting too much of them. They have a particular role to play—a role that should perhaps be more carefully circumscribed. I can think of no purer illustration of the concerns of many than the Prime Minister's response during Prime Minister's questions a couple of weeks ago. Inadvertently, he talked about community support officers supplanting full-time  police officers—we know that he meant supplementing, but he said supplanting, and it appeared in Hansard as supplanting, even though No. 10 is normally assiduous in having such misspeaks removed. That is precisely the concern that many people feel. 
To return an important point that I made earlier in our consideration of the Bill, when the Minister of State was not present, there is a real fear that the role of community support officers is expanding from below, as it were—that there is an incremental approach to their powers. SOCA and the officers who will be involved with it—we are told that they are not police officers, irrespective of the fact that they are—are taking on specific roles at the top. There is a danger that the real police force, the attested officer, will become a narrowly circumscribed rump between the two—the police will become more like a gendarmerie whose primary function is the keeping of the peace instead of genuinely omnicompetent constables. The Minister must be aware of that very real fear among those who are watching what the Government are doing. That is why we need to test carefully any proposal to extend the powers of CSOs beyond what they should be. As I said earlier, they should be the eyes and ears of the police service, providing a visible presence on the streets to offer reassurance to the population and to report to and pass information on to the police service. 
Inevitably, somebody who is put on the street in a blue uniform will at times face circumstances in which he wishes he had greater powers than he has been given by statute. That is not the test, however. The test is not whether it would be useful in such circumstances for a CSO to have the power; it is whether it is sensible for CSOs to be diverted from their primary function in order to exercise a power for which they have not been adequately trained or prepared. That is why we have to consider the Government's proposals critically. 
I have no problem with some of the suggested powers—for example, I have argued almost from the start that community support officers should have a bigger role in traffic offence policing in villages, because it is nonsense to require the attendance of a police constable rather than use such officers to deal with minor traffic offences. I get much more twitchy when we deal with powers of search and seizure, because we are coming close to, if not exceeding, the proper powers of a police constable.

Andrew Mitchell: The point about the placing of traffic signs on which I need reassurance is this: signs placed incorrectly could confuse a motorist coming into an area, who is unused to the way in which the signs are positioned. Therefore, without people receiving the right training, such powers and responsibilities, if wrongly used, could lead to accidents and worse. I need to be satisfied that that will not be case under this creeping increase of powers, and I agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said about the inherent dangers.

David Heath: I am grateful for that explanation. We are talking about supervision rather than anything else; I do not believe that someone will be recruited as a CSO who is so deficient in common sense as to not understand their basic duties. However, they put themselves at risk and there is a question about their capacity to react to unforeseen circumstances when dealing with search and seizure powers. I also have a fundamental concern about whether such powers are intrinsically linked to the attested officer, the office of constable or the equivalent in bodies such as Customs and Excise, rather than to CSOs. The Minister needs to persuade me on that.
I can understand the rationale behind the proposal, especially in the case of community support officers patrolling areas set up as alcohol-free zones by byelaw in a town centre and effectively acting as—I hope that this is not an inappropriately disparaging term—security officers. There is an argument that they should be able to deal with whatever nuisances they find in those circumstances. However, the Minister must assure the Committee about how those powers will be used, because they raise question marks about what happens not when it all goes right, but when it all goes wrong. That is my concern. 
I do not want to put community support officers at risk, nor do I want them to be diverted from their principal duties. I do not want to put police officers at risk through having to put right the deficiencies of their colleagues. I want the criminal justice system to work effectively. For all of that to happen, the Home Office has to have a clear idea of where the boundaries should be set, but I have a feeling that they are shifting in the same direction and that the police service is being squeezed in the middle. I do not want that to happen.

Jonathan Djanogly: My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome have advanced a wide variety of arguments that I would have made, and I support pretty much everything that has been said so far. However, the key question that arose in the debate was at what point does an effective CSO become an untrained and cheap policeman? That point will come. Despite supporting CSOs and continuing to do so, we have grave concerns, first, that the measures proposed in the Bill will shift the balance and, secondly, that because CSOs have been in place for only a short period, it is too early to understand fully what their proper role should be and how they have settled into their role to date. The Government have not done enough research or put together enough information to explain the position of CSOs across the country and where we should go from there.
Whichever way we consider the matter, CSOs amount to policing on the cheap. We support them, mainly because we are desperate to see uniformed people in our towns and villages, but CSOs are no alternative to fully trained police officers. More to the point, CSOs do not come free from central Government. They are normally provided on a matched funding basis. There is always a cost to the local taxpayer, because central Government will never pay the whole amount. There is a good side to CSOs,  in that they are not tied to central Government targets. For instance, at one point Cambridgeshire was not meeting the arrest targets set by central Government—something that the Conservatives will get rid of. The chief constable's response was to send all the local police officers into the local cities so that he could meet the then Home Secretary's targets for the year; however, the CSOs at least were not moved from the villages in which they were policing. There are therefore advantages in having CSOs, but it is still policing on the cheap. 
There are risks, most of which have been set out. Those that come to mind particularly are the concerns that many have expressed about CSOs intervening in public order situations, including searching people, dealing with beggars and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield said in broadening the debate, dealing with drugs crimes. On average, CSOs will have three weeks' training. That may be enough to enable them to perform their basic tasks and to train them to use the basic equipment, such an anti-stab vest, effectively, but is three weeks enough time to train them to use a baton or CS gas? Such issues are of concern. 
The discretionary exercise of CSOs' powers varies from police force to police force. Each chief constable can decide on the applicable powers that he or she feels are appropriate to his or her area. That seems right if we consider CSOs' basic powers, but as those powers grow the need for uniformity becomes more persuasive. I share the concerns that have been voiced so far in this debate and look forward to hearing what the Minister says about the monitoring of CSOs once the powers in question are given, in different ways, across the whole country.

Hazel Blears: We have had an extremely interesting debate. I think that the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield is now in discussion with the usual channels. I was about to say he was in danger of slightly sullying his reputation, with just a little hyperbole in his contribution. I hope that my contribution will reassure him that there is method in what the Government are doing, that there is rigorous analysis of the appropriate role for community support officers, and that we are certainly not in the business of uncontrolled mission creep or function creep, which I genuinely appreciate would give rise to concerns among hon. Members.
The hon. Member for Huntingdon made a good point that as community support officers become established in the fabric of the extended police family—clearly they are to hear to stay—then there is a need to ensure some consistency around their training standards and role. We must try to balance that with the important discretion for chief constables to decide which powers are appropriate for their community support officers in the context of the local policing challenge. Our Government are committed to recruiting an extra 20,000 CSOs.

Jonathan Djanogly: My contention was that the process should be conducted now.

Hazel Blears: I will come to evaluation, monitoring and analysis of CSOs' role in due course. I was about to say this Government are committed to recruiting an extra 20,000 community support officers over the next three years. They will become an established part of the policing scene. In the two years they have been patrolling our streets, CSOs have really proven the success of the extended police family in England and Wales. I am delighted that hon. Gentlemen have praised the community support officers patrolling their own constituencies. I join them, for I have an extra 12 community support officers coming to my constituency shortly. I will be delighted to welcome them, for they are enormously reassuring to my community. Most community support officers spend about 70 per cent. of their time on patrol in their local areas. They are highly visible, which contributes to the reassurance they are able to give to those communities.
The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield—and to some extent the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome—talked about the possible diminution of the role of the attested officer and the beat constable. I want to place on record the sentiments I have expressed on a number of occasions: I see community support officers as a complement, an addition to the record numbers of police officers we already have patrolling our streets. I want them to direct their attention towards the low-level, antisocial behaviour that is top of our constituents' priorities but that, in the past, has often not received the attention it deserved because of other demands on police service. CSOs are in addition to our police officers. 
The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield said that the Conservative Government were in the business of supporting civilianisation. They certainly were, for they had more civilians and 1,100 fewer police officers. We have more police officers and more civilians. Our approach is probably more appreciated by the British people than the hon. Gentleman's—which was, in practice, reducing the number of police officers available to protect our communities. 
I see an important role not only for the constable but for all the federated ranks in our service, but again their role is changing. Many police constables will say that they welcome the opportunity to be leaders of neighbourhood teams. Increasingly, that is the job they are taking on. It is pretty complex, leading a team of police community support officers and neighbourhood wardens. Exercising influence over accredited persons who are not directly under their command and control requires a new set of skills but when I talk to police constables who are carrying out this role, many of them tell me they do not really know how they managed without the community support officers. They see them as a really good asset, provided they are concentrating on that low-level role.

David Heath: The Minister is touching on a crucial thing. One plus point of what the Government have been doing in this area is the re-emphasis on the patrol function. Again, I have been arguing for many years that it is a specialism—something we need to nurture within the police service. The concept of the patrol function did not just happen by accident. It is not a  marginal add-on to fighting crime while rushing around dealing with the big stuff. It is actually crucial to effective policing.

Hazel Blears: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. The danger, however, is that people start talking about neighbourhood policing as a kind of warm, fuzzy way of carrying out the job when it is actually hard-edged and driven by intelligence, through the national intelligence model and community intelligence. Indeed, community support officers are some of the best people for getting community intelligence. Local people will often talk to a CSO when they would not necessarily talk to a police constable. Because they are out there 70 per cent. of the time, CSOs make relationships with head teachers, shopkeepers and so on. Police constables, too, have such relationships, but CSOs are an excellent additional source of the intelligence that drives good, successful, hard-edge, proactive neighbourhood policing.

Andrew Mitchell: What the hon. Lady says is true, but I hope that she will not forget the point made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), who made it clear that, in respect of such relationships, PCSOs should not be a substitute for the beat officer. She will recall that point being made in Westminster Hall last week. There is substantial agreement between all three parties on the question of neighbourhood policing, but I agree with her hon. Friend on that important point.

Hazel Blears: I am glad that we have some consensus across the parties. I want to deal now with some of our differences.
The hon. Members for Sutton Coldfield and for Huntingdon raised the issue of evaluation and asked whether we should be rolling out increasing powers in advance of national evaluation, which is due this summer. An interim evaluation, which has been circulated to members of the Committee, looks at the experience of CSOs in 27 forces. 
The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield is right that evidence on the impact of CSOs on reduction of crime is limited, but it is early days. However, their impact on public satisfaction is amazing. In Leeds and Bradford, 96 per cent. of those who had had contact with CSOs were satisfied with the way in which the situation was handled. In Northumbria, satisfaction with the police has risen by 32 per cent. in areas where CSOs have been introduced. They are certainly visible in Westminster, where 86 per cent. of respondents have seen a CSO. In St. Helens, in connection with one of our most intractable problems, young people reported that their interactions with community support officers were more positive than interaction with police officers. 
The interim evaluation also shows that CSOs have had a significant impact. In Bradford and Leeds, 64 per cent. of people said that the visible presence of police officers including a CSO reassured them about their personal safety. That is good early evidence. We have commissioned an extensive report into community support officers; it is a huge study and it will report in a few months. However, the evaluation and research is  ongoing, and I see no reason for us to halt in our tracks pending that full evaluation because, to a significant extent, I am reassured by the interim evaluation.

Andrew Mitchell: We disagree with the Minister. She should not be spending hard-earned taxpayers' money without the sort of evaluation being in place that she says is coming down the tracks. It is her duty as a Minister to act as guardian for the taxpayer—the hard-working families who cough up the huge sums of extra tax under this Government—and she should not spend that money until she has that evaluation.
She can pluck quotes from the interim paper as well as I can, but she should at least accept that one of the top indications of the impact of CSOs is to be found on page 4, where it states: 
 ''Currently, there is limited evidence as to whether the presence of CSOs has an impact on crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour.'' 
That is not the evidence that the Minister or we require for the spending of large sums of money on rolling out a more expensive programme of PCSOs. That is the point.

Hazel Blears: I was trying to be as fair and open as I could in indicating that parts of the evaluation were strong on visibility and public satisfaction but that evidence on crime reduction is still in early development.
I can trade further information with the hon. Gentleman if he so wishes. In the 12 months following the introduction of CSOs in Leeds city centre, vehicle-related crime fell by 31 per cent., and personal robbery by 47 per cent. I am not going to say that robbery was virtually halved as a result of CSOs being deployed in that city centre. Making that direct link would be premature and pretty disingenuous, and I will not do so. 
The hon. Gentleman should take note of the public's satisfaction on the visibility and accessibility of CSOs and their impact on people's sense of reassurance. He should also be aware that, in the British crime survey of 18 months ago, some 21 per cent. of people were very concerned about the impact of antisocial behaviour on their quality of life. However, in the past 18 months, that is down to 16 per cent.—down by a massive five points. Given the introduction of CSOs, with their focus on low-level antisocial behaviour, it is not entirely a coincidence that people perceive the incidence of a range of things, including fly-tipping, graffiti, abandoned cars and gangs hanging around beginning to come down quite dramatically. That is testament to the Government's investment in the together campaign against antisocial behaviour, which is so popular with members of the public. 
The powers that we seek to introduce through the Bill are designed to enable CSOs to deal with situations that they routinely face. It is not about extending their powers into a massive new area of work. I want them to concentrate on antisocial behaviour. Quite often when they are going about their patrolling business, they will come up against certain circumstances. In the  Bill, we have tried, quite forensically, to see whether they need additional powers to cope with certain things that arise day to day. An example is begging. Often, CSOs will be out on the streets and will see people begging. Currently, under public order legislation, they have powers to deal with aggressive begging, but they do not have powers to deal with passive begging, which in its own way can be quite intimidating to people who want to use a cash machine or do their shopping in the city centre. 
These powers mean that, after careful examination, a CSO can detain the beggar. They can ask them to stop begging and, if they do not stop, they can ask them for their name and address. What kind of name and address they might get from a beggar I am not sure, but if the beggar does not give a name and address he can be detained and the CSO can get a police officer. That is good not only for the public, in that we can get begging off the streets, but for beggars. Some 80 per cent. of beggars beg to feed a drug habit. If a CSO can help to channel a person into drug treatment, we can create a virtuous circle in getting them off the street. Let us consider the respect campaign in Nottingham and the antisocial behaviour trailblazer scheme in Brighton, which has been directed at begging and street drinking. The success of those campaigns in clearing up the begging and street drinking that make people's lives a misery is phenomenal. That is an example of the way in which powers have been targeted. 
We are not involved in mission creep in a general sense, or in getting CSOs to take on more of a policing role. We are trying to ensure that chief constables still have the power to designate their CSOs with powers, which is important. Most of the Opposition amendments would remove the powers that we propose and prevent us from increasing the effectiveness of CSOs in dealing with low-level crime and antisocial behaviour. Another example of the powers that we are giving CSOs is the power to enable them to deal with some licensing offences where young people are attempting to buy alcohol in an off-licence. That is a big problem. In fact, the problems of binge drinking and antisocial behaviour are very much in the news at the moment. 
We are saying that a CSO has the power to enter an off-licence on their own to try to enforce those licensing offences. However, they can go into a pub only in the company of a police officer, because we recognise that that could be a more confrontational environment. CSOs do not have the power to go into nightclubs at all. That is an example of the way in which we have tried to stagger powers. Rather than giving CSOs the power to enforce licensing offences in any environment, we have said that an off-licence is not likely to be too much of a problem and they can enter one on their own. If they go into a pub, they need to do so with a police officer, for added protection, but they cannot go into nightclubs, because that could be too confrontational.

Andrew Mitchell: What the Minister says about the treatment of an off-licence as opposed to a pub is right. Conservative Members can understand the logic of  that, but she will have noticed that it was not one of the circumstances that I raised when I ran through a plethora of circumstances that are far more confused in dealing with the different roles of a trained police officer and a PCSO.

Hazel Blears: Let me deal then with one of the matters that the hon. Gentleman did raise, which is the power to put up road signs. I genuinely do not understand why he takes exception to that. We are giving CSOs that power because often a CSO might be the first person at the site of a road traffic accident or incident. If they can put up signs, they could prevent further harm from being done as a result of people entering the site where the accident occurred. With proper training and supervision, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said, there is no reason why CSOs should not put up road signs. Indeed, if they did not do so when they were the first on the scene of an accident, they might not be doing their duty as a citizen to try to ensure that they mitigated the danger before other emergency staff arrived.
I reject the charge that we are embarked on a wholesale expansion of CSO powers. We are not. They are extremely carefully targeted. I have dealt with evaluation, and I do not accept that we should delay things while it takes place. 
I turn now to the Government amendments, which are important. They are new powers. Hon. Members have raised the issue of CSOs dealing with young people and the related powers that they have to deal with alcohol and tobacco. Again, in their day-to-day business, when they are out patrolling, they will find youngsters smoking and drinking on the street causing a nuisance to local residents. CSOs should have the power to search for alcohol and tobacco that the youngsters could have concealed about their person. 
Often the CSO will approach youngsters who are drinking out of open containers. They may well be able to take the container off them and pour it away, but the youngsters could well have further alcohol concealed about their person, in their pockets, or under their coats. They could also have cigarettes. The provision with regard to controlled drugs is simply an incidental provision. If they are searching for alcohol and tobacco and come across some cannabis, it would be a pretty silly state of affairs if they were able to confiscate the alcohol and the tobacco but could not seize the cannabis and had to allow the person to go on their way with it. It is a question of what they might find incidentally while carrying out their duties in those circumstances. 
Similarly, the powers that we have to search persons to see whether they have a dangerous item or whether they are carrying anything that could help them to escape are incidental powers. The Police Federation told us that it supports the power for a CSO to search someone for something that would be dangerous, because it recognises that that power is there to protect the CSO. If a CSO detains someone and believes that he is carrying something that could be used to injure him, but does not have the power to search the person for that item, his power is incredibly frustrated. It is a sensible, simple power for the protection of the CSO.  It is certainly not intended to send the CSO on a proactive search for dangerous items. They do not have the power to undertake those kind of stop and searches. It is important that we circumscribe the powers in a proper, ordered, coherent and rigorous manner. 
I am also not happy with the amendment that seeks to shorten the period of detention to 15 minutes. That is not realistic. We said 30 minutes. In our evaluation of the pilots of detention powers, in two thirds of detentions police officers arrived in about 15 minutes. There is a significant number in which it takes up to 30 minutes. The other amendment removes the period altogether. Some people might well take exception to CSOs having the right to detain people for an unlimited period. We think that we have it about right with the 30 minutes. Again, I reject both amendments. 
I have covered most of the items that have been raised. The final items are powers for CSOs to enforce bye laws. That will be hugely welcomed by local authorities. Many of our present bye laws go unenforced at present. CSOs will be able to enforce bye laws for skateboarding in parks and other kinds of nuisance. Civilian enforcement officers in local authorities now have the power to enforce bye laws as well, so that is not a huge step for CSOs to take. 
I reassure hon. Members that the powers that are set out in these provisions have been carefully considered. CSOs are not taking on the role of police officers. They are there to help, assist and complement the work of our attested police service. In that role they are more or less universally welcomed, not just by the public, because that is beyond contest, but by the vast majority of police officers whom I meet up and down the country who see them as an extremely helpful resource in their fight against crime and antisocial behaviour.

Andrew Mitchell: This is has been a helpful debate in a number of ways. I differ with the Minister on a number of points, but I agree with her on others. If she believes that the vast majority of police officers are relaxed about these extra powers being given to CSOs, she needs to get out more. The police officers to whom I have spoken, particularly in the Police Federation, are very concerned. One reason why we tabled this plethora of amendments today was to flush out some of these points.
We agree with some of the Minister's points—we are a responsible Opposition and we tabled probing amendments—but fair is fair: there are issues on which she made her point, but others on which she did not. She has a brass neck to quote the British crime survey and attribute any of it to CSOs. I am tempted to get out the little list I keep in my diary of how crime has rocketed and detection rates have plummeted under this Government. However, in the spirit of good will that has pervaded the Committee almost from the first minute of our deliberations, I shall resist that temptation unless she provokes me further in that respect. 
Secondly, we are concerned about training. We want to be satisfied that the training of PCSOs gives value for money. We hope that the evaluation that the Minister says will be done in the summer will help in that respect. Our third concern also relates to evaluation: the money should not be spent in advance of a full evaluation. That remains our position, and nothing that she said detracts from those concerns. 
We may well support the proposition that there should be 23,000 more PCSOs, subject to the evaluation, but that is no substitute for the Conservative's costed pledge—40,000 policemen and women, at the rate of 5,000 per year, starting from day one after an election. The PCSOs are no substitute for properly trained—[Interruption.] I seem to have got the Committee's attention. They are no substitute for the extra 40,000 police who are at the heart of the Conservative party's appeal at the next election. 
I listened carefully to the Minister, and we may wish to raise these matters on Report. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Clause 113 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 8 - Powers of designated and accredited persons

Amendments made: No. 264, in schedule 8, page 169, line 11, leave out from 'all)' to end of line 13 and insert 
'relevant offences, relevant licensing offences or relevant byelaws, being in each case specified in the designation.''.'. 
No. 265, in schedule 8, page 169, line 14, after '(2)', insert— 
'(a) at the beginning insert ''Subject to sub-paragraph (3ZA),'', 
(b) '. 
No. 266, in schedule 8, page 169, line 22, at end insert— 
 '(3ZA) The power to impose a requirement under sub-paragraph (2) in relation to an offence under a relevant byelaw is exercisable only in a place to which the byelaw relates.'. 
No. 267, in schedule 8, page 169, line 35, at end insert— 
'(ad) an offence under a relevant byelaw; or'''. 
No. 268, in schedule 8, page 170, line 5, at end insert— 
 '(6B) In this paragraph ''relevant byelaw'' means a byelaw included in a list of byelaws which— 
(a) have been made by a relevant body with authority to make byelaws for any place within the relevant police area; and
(b) the chief officer of the police force for the relevant police area and the relevant body have agreed to include in the list. 
 (6C) The list must be published by the chief officer in such a way as to bring it to the attention of members of the public in localities where the byelaws in the list apply. 
 (6D) A list of byelaws mentioned in sub-paragraph (6B) may be amended from time to time by agreement between the chief officer and the relevant body in question, by adding byelaws to it or removing byelaws from it, and the amended list shall also be published by the chief officer as mentioned in sub-paragraph (6C). 
 (6E) A relevant body for the purposes of sub-paragraph (6B) is— 
(a) in England, a county council, a district council, a London borough council or a parish council; or in Wales, a county council, a county borough council or a community council; 
(b) the Greater London Authority; 
(c) Transport for London; 
(d) a metropolitan county passenger transport authority established under section 28 of the Local Government Act 1985; 
(e) any body specified in an order made by the Secretary of State. 
 (6F) An order under sub-paragraph (6E)(e) may provide, in relation to any body specified in the order, that the agreement mentioned in sub-paragraph (6B)(b) and (6D) is to be made between the chief officer and the Secretary of State (rather than between the chief officer and the relevant body).'''. 
No. 58, in schedule 8, page 171, line 13, at end insert— 
 'After paragraph 7 insert— 
''Search and seizure powers: alcohol and tobacco 
 7A (1) Where a designation applies this paragraph to any person (''the CSO''), the CSO shall have the powers set out below. 
 (2) Where— 
(a) in exercise of the powers referred to in paragraph 5 or 6 above the CSO has imposed, under section 12(2) of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 or under section 1 of the Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Act 1997, a requirement on a person to surrender alcohol or a container for alcohol; 
(b) that person fails to comply with that requirement; and 
(c) the CSO reasonably believes that the person has alcohol or a container for alcohol in his possession, 
the CSO may search him for it. 
(3) Where— 
(a) in exercise of the powers referred to in paragraph 7 above the CSO has sought to seize something which by virtue of that paragraph he has a power to seize; 
(b) the person from whom he sought to seize it fails to surrender it; and 
(c) the CSO reasonably believes that the person has it in his possession, 
the CSO may search him for it. 
 (4) The power to search conferred by sub-paragraph (2) or (3)— 
(a) is to do so only to the extent that is reasonably required for the purpose of discovering whatever the CSO is searching for; and 
(b) does not authorise the CSO to require a person to remove any of his clothing in public other than an outer coat, jacket or gloves. 
 (5) A person who without reasonable excuse fails to consent to being searched is guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale. 
 (6) A CSO who proposes to exercise the power to search a person under sub-paragraph (2) or (3) must inform him that failing without reasonable excuse to consent to being searched is an offence. 
 (7) If the person in question fails to consent to being searched, the CSO may require him to give the CSO his name and address.
 (8) Sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 2 applies in the case of a requirement imposed by virtue of sub-paragraph (7) as it applies in the case of a requirement under sub-paragraph (2) of that paragraph; and sub-paragraphs (4) to (5) of that paragraph also apply accordingly. 
 (9) If on searching the person the CSO discovers what he is searching for, he may seize it and dispose of it. 
Powers to seize and detain: controlled drugs 
 7B (1) Where a designation applies this paragraph to any person (''the CSO''), the CSO shall, within the relevant police area, have the powers set out in sub-paragraphs (2) and (3). 
 (2) If the CSO— 
(a) finds a controlled drug in a person's possession (whether or not he finds it in the course of searching the person by virtue of a designation under any paragraph of this Schedule), and 
(b) reasonably believes that it is unlawful for the person to be in possession of it, 
the CSO may seize it and retain it. 
 (3) If the CSO— 
(a) finds a controlled drug in a person's possession (as mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)); or 
(b) reasonably believes that a person is in possession of a controlled drug, 
and reasonably believes that it is unlawful for the person to be in possession of it, the CSO may require him to give the CSO his name and address. 
 (4) If in exercise of the power conferred by sub-paragraph (2) the CSO seizes and retains a controlled drug, he must— 
(a) if the person from whom it was seized maintains that he was lawfully in possession of it, tell the person where inquiries about its recovery may be made; and 
(b) comply with a constable's instructions about what to do with it. 
 (5) A person who fails to comply with a requirement under sub-paragraph (3) is guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale. 
 (6) In this paragraph, ''controlled drug'' has the same meaning as in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. 
 7C (1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies where a designation applies this paragraph to any person (''the CSO''). 
 (2) If the CSO imposes a requirement on a person under paragraph 7B(3)— 
(a) sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 2 applies in the case of such a requirement as it applies in the case of a requirement under sub-paragraph (2) of that paragraph; and 
(b) sub-paragraphs (4) to (5) of that paragraph also apply accordingly.'''.—[Ms Blears] 
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 9 - Additional powers and duties of designated persons

Amendments made: No. 59, in schedule 9, page 175, line 35, after 'person),', insert— 
'(a) in sub-paragraph (2)(b), after ''relevant offences'' insert ''or relevant licensing offences'', 
(b) '. 
No. 60, in schedule 9, page 175, line 39, leave out 
'under sub-paragraph (3A) of paragraph 2' 
and insert 
'to wait with him under paragraph 2(3A) or by virtue of paragraph 7A(8) or 7C(2)(a)'.—[Ms Blears] 
Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to. 
Clause 114 and 115 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 9 - Handcuffing

'In section 117 of PACE (power of constables to use reasonable force), at end insert— 
 ''(2) Where any provision of this Act confers a power of arrest on a constable, the officer may on arrest secure the hands of the arrested person by handcuffing until such time as the constable has determined that the arrested person will not present a danger to himself or others, or seek to escape from lawful custody. 
 (3) Subsection (2) shall be without prejudice to any other power to use handcuffs on an arrested person (whether provided under this Act or otherwise).''.'. 
Brought up, and read the First time.

Andrew Mitchell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is very much a probing amendment. The Opposition are making the proposal on behalf of the Police Federation, and we shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say on the subject. The purpose of the new clause is to allow a constable to secure the hands of an 
''arrested person by handcuffing until such time as the constable has determined that the arrested person will not present a danger to himself or others, or seek to escape from lawful custody.'' 
Let me repeat that this is a probing amendment; we wish to find out what the Government think about the proposition. 
As I understand it, police officers currently need to make an instantaneous assessment of risk before handcuffing detainees. While it is impossible to state definitively whether the murders of two police officers in recent months would have been prevented by such a measure, we believe that those tragedies give added credence to our call for the examination of this new clause. 
In other parts of the world, the position on the use of handcuffs is very different. Police officers are encouraged automatically to handcuff in a more controlled environment, with a view to risk assessing the need to control an individual in that fashion. For instance, that allows officers to search a detained person for weapons. The point is important to the Police Federation, and I shall most grateful if the Minister can give her view on the merits or otherwise of the new clause.

Hazel Blears: I entirely understand the concern of the Police Federation to ensure that police officers have sufficient powers to enable them to deal with some of the difficult situations that they face, often involving the apprehension of violent people. We do not believe, however, that the new clause is necessary, and we consider that the use of handcuffs should not be explicitly covered in primary legislation. Police officers have the power to use reasonable force. They sometimes have to make split second decisions about whether to use handcuffs, and such decisions should be covered properly in their training and risk assessment processes. The Association of Chief Police Officers has produced some very good guidance on the use of handcuffs, which sets out explicitly the process that officers should go through in considering what is  reasonable. I shall be happy to pass on to ACPO any concern that the hon. Gentleman wants to raise about the current guidance.
I do not believe that the new clause would offer any extra protection to officers effecting an arrest beyond that which is found in PACE. It would be inconsistent to include one kind of restraint in the Bill without then covering others, such as CS gas and batons in this case. Those are important matters, and I stress that I am keen for officers to have access to the full range of facilities to protect themselves in confrontational and violent situations. 
We have guidance about reasonable force, and we have also talked a lot about policing by consent. Again, automatically resorting to handcuffs is not the right approach. The relationship between the police and the citizen is very important, and it is for police  officers to decide whether they need to use handcuffs at the moment in which they apprehend somebody. I reject the new clause on that basis, but that does not lessen my commitment to ensuring that police officers are fully and properly protected.

Andrew Mitchell: I am most grateful to the Minister for that elucidation. Those outside the House will read what she has said, and I will discuss it with them. She is right about the balance of power between the police officer and the citizen, and the use of handcuffs in that situation, so I accept her reasons for rejecting the new clause. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn. 
Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Heppell.] 
Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Seven o'clock till Thursday 20 January at ten minutes past Nine o'clock.